- Angeline Jolie as Samus Aran - Natalie Portman as the Mother Brain (now also in glass jar!) - twenty-thousand computers in a Linux renderfarm for everything else
There's a reason why the spam-fighters are so pessimistic about the possibilities. You can't match all of the below. (In particular, we want to manage our own mailservers, but won't let others because they are incompetent. We want to receive all non-spam email but also want no spam to get through filters. We don't want legislation and bureaucracy to get in the way. We don't want to pay per email because of our high volume mailing lists like lkml. etc etc.)
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I'll believe Microsoft will beat Linux when it does. Let's wait for Longhorn, shall we? You too, assume that Linux will not have changed its position in the market. That it will not have already eroded at least into the mind-share of IT managers. We already know Linux has a growing portion of those, and a good (though not majority) portion of the IT front-line.
The business market is where the battle will be fought, and won. Not the home desktop. The home desktop will be a minor consequence.
(Frankly, the ability to just install something on double-click or autorun is a disaster waiting to happen. As a business user, that's one of the first two policy changes I would make to a Windows system anyway.)
Being able to install the same program on Windows 98/2000/XP is because they leveraged the existing code base heavily. It also means you have security holes that affect 2k3 that also affect NT4.
Most of what you describe above are administrative tasks, and frankly I'd rather keep that bit a bit arcane, if only to keep people from being accustomed to "su and say."
Automation of these tasks, certainly. auto-apt looks like it's going in the right direction at the application level, it'd be interesting to see it go at the driver level. But manual intervention? I wholeheartedly discourage this.
In the battle against software oppresion, the first front is destroying the onld UNIX systems.
What's wrong with the old UNIX systems? Solaris still boasts of some functionality that Linux will probably take a few months:) to program and test. Think 128-cpu scalability, hot-swap CPU...
Linux is just as capable of becoming corpulent and lazy as the dominant OS provider. And competition also keeps our security stance strong. There's a place for Solaris, and AIX, and yes, even Windows in the computing market.
(and we'll probably have to keep saying it for another three years)
The innovators have spoken, and they like what they saw.
Now the volume will pick up, as more people take notice, and the ease-of-learning continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As businesses start deploying Linux on the workstation for cost competitive advantage and security competitive advantage, there will be more demand of open-source integration - and more open-source programming jobs.
Then come the hordes that are the mainstream users and late adopters. Oh how I hope the Linux community is actually ready for this.
Careful here. IANAL but I'm trying to read the license and here's what I read:
1) If a Contributor changes the license, the Recipient can get the source code.
2) If a Contributor does not change the license, the Recipient does not necessarily get the source code.
Since it looks like this code is meant to be used by developers as a meta-install package bundled into, say, MS VC, to facilitate packaging, Microsoft can throw it into the development environment, inform the customer of the different license, and maybe even point the Recipient to the Sourceforge. But that doesn't mean the Recipient gets the source used to recompile this particular build of the package.
You're making the assumption that emissions are a byproduct of economic activity. While correlated, there are other factors you forget. Such as technological improvements for alternative (and renewable) energy sources.
Designed to cripple the US economy is not synonymous with reducing the dependency US has on crude oil. In fact, it'd be a great thing if this actually happened - lower emissions AND lower manufacture costs and gasoline costs as the demand for oil drops. It's BETTER for nearly everybody in the long run (nearly because the execs at Big Oil will not make billions again).
Re:This is necessary
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Do we really need another Cold War? I can see it now, the videos going "When the terrorists strike, get under your desks and pray."
I disagree with the notion that humans are antagonistic. Granted, they are self-serving, but what is good for me may also be good for you. The entire notion of service industry commerce is based on that.
Kyoto is rather mal-formed. It is based on false scientific premises, and is designed to do nothing but wreck economies of certain countries.
Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change. But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources.
Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs (and associated medical insurance/taxes).
Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing, such as the carbon sink offsets and emissions credit trading. Countries coud pump CO2 like crazy by buying emissions credits to countries that have large forests.
... You will get naked and horny...... You want sex now...... vi is superior to emacs...
Okay, seriously. You want Audacity. It's multi-track sound-editing software, so you can prepare your subliminal messages and just add them into another waveform. Then you save the results.
Downloading is legal. But there has to be an uploader first ^^ and I don't think the uploader will get off the hook so easily.
After all, there's a Shared Folder which, surprise surprise, shares the contents of that folder to the world. Even if it's not legal for them to do so.
Who has the rights to download the music? Well, in Canada it's legal to download anyway.
And I'm sure the CRIA members also have the right to download the content that they actually own the copyrights to. It's like saying, yeah, go ahead and make a copy of the software I wrote, it's available on that guy's computer. (And the server of course is indeed sharing it, as advertised.)
it's because it's on a technicality about "insufficient information."
What's wrong with the CRIA obtaining subpoenas against people that they can positively identify as file uploaders of the member companies' copyrighted material? It's not outrageously hard to have somebody at minimum wage sit behind a terminal and try to download music from Canadian ip addresses. And once you have that, it's a known act of copyright infringement anyway, which as we all know, is illegal.
I don't condone the recording industry's stance and think they should be looking to leverage the technology instead of fighting against it, but they do have the legal right to demand information on people that they have reasonable evidence of illegal activity on. Let them sue the people that upload, not people that use the technology that could either upload or not.
Besides, I'm not sure we want the ISPs to take on the role of gatekeeper either. This is a legal liability on ISPs and the costs of that will be borne by the end-user.
This makes them terribly vulnerable. All they own is mindshare. They don't even have brand value. Nobody buys a CD because it comes from MCA.
Oddly enough, I would disagree even with that. I *have* purchased CDs because it was Avex Trax. YMMV.
If it really was the case that they'd be this blind, I would have expected lawsuits against Apple, MusicMatch, Creative, and all those other companies that sell MP3 players, because, after all, "if you want to listen to music elsewhere, you purchase another CD." Or something. I don't think they see filesharing as an issue at all beyond "what subliminal messages can we insert."
Proposal: an Orange Book cd, with the usual 50 minutes of audio, along with HQ (256kbps?) AACs as a datatrack, specificially made so that a rip from the audio itself doesn't yield the same result on conversion to MP3 as the AAC. Then you could trace it around the Internet.
An organization can defend against patent infringement selectively. They do not lose the patent rights. It becomes harder to collect damages though, since they did not try to mitigate the loss.
Unisys patented LZW and saw it used everywhere. Then they started charging for licenses. The fact that they knew what was happening didn't invalidate the patent. Sleazy, sure, but legal.
You may think they are trying to keep what market and distribution methods are available at a cartel. While that's what they are publicly doing, I doubt the masterminds behind the member companies are that perversely blind.
You have a bunch of big corporations, that by definition are not going to be able to react quickly to new changes in the environment. There's layers of bureaucracy within, and many times (think Sony Computer vs Sony Music) the left hand wants to slap the wrists of the right. I think they're just looking for a way to take advantage of the new system but don't have a clean implementation ready to put into production. So they make loud threatening noises and otherwise put up a front.
Then they come out with a new system that everybody had already proposed ten times over three years ago. And everybody, especially the cartel members, end up happy.
"Intel will continue to use its own IA64. No, we are not going to use AMD's x86-64 extensions."
The source for Qt in X is already available. It becomes a GPL/QPL port for developers to have fun with. Not that it hasn't been done already by the TT guys, but like any other unavailable backscratchers for that annoying itch, somebody will build it.
It costs nothing to use Qt to build software that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise, so long as it is not distributed outside the enterprise.
Liken it to the GPL restriction: if you are bound by both the GPL and another license (say a proprietary development framework) the only distribution option is to not distribute at all.
In the same way that we can fight "reverse engineering" copyright infringement through clean-room implementation, a closed-source shop can clean-room implement, say, GNOME and all its libraries and programs. And then it would not be encumbered in the least.
Slashdot Mirror
- Angeline Jolie as Samus Aran
- Natalie Portman as the Mother Brain (now also in glass jar!)
- twenty-thousand computers in a Linux renderfarm for everything else
You misspelled when.
I'm not sure whether to be more disturbed that it's you there or that I recognized that it was you from your nick.
^^
(P.S. is there a PM system on slashdot? and why isn't there?)
There's a reason why the spam-fighters are so pessimistic about the possibilities. You can't match all of the below. (In particular, we want to manage our own mailservers, but won't let others because they are incompetent. We want to receive all non-spam email but also want no spam to get through filters. We don't want legislation and bureaucracy to get in the way. We don't want to pay per email because of our high volume mailing lists like lkml. etc etc.)
------
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I'll believe Microsoft will beat Linux when it does. Let's wait for Longhorn, shall we? You too, assume that Linux will not have changed its position in the market. That it will not have already eroded at least into the mind-share of IT managers. We already know Linux has a growing portion of those, and a good (though not majority) portion of the IT front-line.
The business market is where the battle will be fought, and won. Not the home desktop. The home desktop will be a minor consequence.
(Frankly, the ability to just install something on double-click or autorun is a disaster waiting to happen. As a business user, that's one of the first two policy changes I would make to a Windows system anyway.)
Being able to install the same program on Windows 98/2000/XP is because they leveraged the existing code base heavily. It also means you have security holes that affect 2k3 that also affect NT4.
Most of what you describe above are administrative tasks, and frankly I'd rather keep that bit a bit arcane, if only to keep people from being accustomed to "su and say."
Automation of these tasks, certainly. auto-apt looks like it's going in the right direction at the application level, it'd be interesting to see it go at the driver level. But manual intervention? I wholeheartedly discourage this.
In the battle against software oppresion, the first front is destroying the onld UNIX systems.
:) to program and test. Think 128-cpu scalability, hot-swap CPU...
What's wrong with the old UNIX systems? Solaris still boasts of some functionality that Linux will probably take a few months
Linux is just as capable of becoming corpulent and lazy as the dominant OS provider. And competition also keeps our security stance strong. There's a place for Solaris, and AIX, and yes, even Windows in the computing market.
(and we'll probably have to keep saying it for another three years)
The innovators have spoken, and they like what they saw.
Now the volume will pick up, as more people take notice, and the ease-of-learning continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As businesses start deploying Linux on the workstation for cost competitive advantage and security competitive advantage, there will be more demand of open-source integration - and more open-source programming jobs.
Then come the hordes that are the mainstream users and late adopters. Oh how I hope the Linux community is actually ready for this.
Careful here. IANAL but I'm trying to read the license and here's what I read:
1) If a Contributor changes the license, the Recipient can get the source code.
2) If a Contributor does not change the license, the Recipient does not necessarily get the source code.
Since it looks like this code is meant to be used by developers as a meta-install package bundled into, say, MS VC, to facilitate packaging, Microsoft can throw it into the development environment, inform the customer of the different license, and maybe even point the Recipient to the Sourceforge. But that doesn't mean the Recipient gets the source used to recompile this particular build of the package.
This license reads more like the BSD license, with all its "the code is out for everybody to grab and hide" kefussles.
Open Code + bug fixes + hidden extensions == incompatible again.
Global Warming, referencing Wikipedia.
You're making the assumption that emissions are a byproduct of economic activity. While correlated, there are other factors you forget. Such as technological improvements for alternative (and renewable) energy sources.
Designed to cripple the US economy is not synonymous with reducing the dependency US has on crude oil. In fact, it'd be a great thing if this actually happened - lower emissions AND lower manufacture costs and gasoline costs as the demand for oil drops. It's BETTER for nearly everybody in the long run (nearly because the execs at Big Oil will not make billions again).
Do we really need another Cold War? I can see it now, the videos going "When the terrorists strike, get under your desks and pray."
I disagree with the notion that humans are antagonistic. Granted, they are self-serving, but what is good for me may also be good for you. The entire notion of service industry commerce is based on that.
Kyoto is rather mal-formed. It is based on false scientific premises, and is designed to do nothing but wreck economies of certain countries.
Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change. But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources.
Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs (and associated medical insurance/taxes).
Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing, such as the carbon sink offsets and emissions credit trading. Countries coud pump CO2 like crazy by buying emissions credits to countries that have large forests.
... You will get naked and horny ... ... You want sex now ... ... vi is superior to emacs ...
Okay, seriously. You want Audacity. It's multi-track sound-editing software, so you can prepare your subliminal messages and just add them into another waveform. Then you save the results.
Downloading is legal. But there has to be an uploader first ^^ and I don't think the uploader will get off the hook so easily.
After all, there's a Shared Folder which, surprise surprise, shares the contents of that folder to the world. Even if it's not legal for them to do so.
Except it's not illegal.
Who has the rights to download the music? Well, in Canada it's legal to download anyway.
And I'm sure the CRIA members also have the right to download the content that they actually own the copyrights to. It's like saying, yeah, go ahead and make a copy of the software I wrote, it's available on that guy's computer. (And the server of course is indeed sharing it, as advertised.)
it's because it's on a technicality about "insufficient information."
What's wrong with the CRIA obtaining subpoenas against people that they can positively identify as file uploaders of the member companies' copyrighted material? It's not outrageously hard to have somebody at minimum wage sit behind a terminal and try to download music from Canadian ip addresses. And once you have that, it's a known act of copyright infringement anyway, which as we all know, is illegal.
I don't condone the recording industry's stance and think they should be looking to leverage the technology instead of fighting against it, but they do have the legal right to demand information on people that they have reasonable evidence of illegal activity on. Let them sue the people that upload, not people that use the technology that could either upload or not.
Besides, I'm not sure we want the ISPs to take on the role of gatekeeper either. This is a legal liability on ISPs and the costs of that will be borne by the end-user.
Catching all viruses is easy. Label all files viruses. Isn't all that helpful but absolutely "true."
Just like flagging all spam is easy, or flagging all important email important is easy.
(For those in statistics, Type I and Type II error.)
This is so well laid out that even a child of 6 could understand what it is
Fetch me a child of six!
This makes them terribly vulnerable. All they own is mindshare. They don't even have brand value. Nobody buys a CD because it comes from MCA.
Oddly enough, I would disagree even with that. I *have* purchased CDs because it was Avex Trax. YMMV.
If it really was the case that they'd be this blind, I would have expected lawsuits against Apple, MusicMatch, Creative, and all those other companies that sell MP3 players, because, after all, "if you want to listen to music elsewhere, you purchase another CD." Or something. I don't think they see filesharing as an issue at all beyond "what subliminal messages can we insert."
Proposal: an Orange Book cd, with the usual 50 minutes of audio, along with HQ (256kbps?) AACs as a datatrack, specificially made so that a rip from the audio itself doesn't yield the same result on conversion to MP3 as the AAC. Then you could trace it around the Internet.
Patents != Trademark
An organization can defend against patent infringement selectively. They do not lose the patent rights. It becomes harder to collect damages though, since they did not try to mitigate the loss.
Unisys patented LZW and saw it used everywhere. Then they started charging for licenses. The fact that they knew what was happening didn't invalidate the patent. Sleazy, sure, but legal.
You may think they are trying to keep what market and distribution methods are available at a cartel. While that's what they are publicly doing, I doubt the masterminds behind the member companies are that perversely blind.
You have a bunch of big corporations, that by definition are not going to be able to react quickly to new changes in the environment. There's layers of bureaucracy within, and many times (think Sony Computer vs Sony Music) the left hand wants to slap the wrists of the right. I think they're just looking for a way to take advantage of the new system but don't have a clean implementation ready to put into production. So they make loud threatening noises and otherwise put up a front.
Then they come out with a new system that everybody had already proposed ten times over three years ago. And everybody, especially the cartel members, end up happy.
"Intel will continue to use its own IA64. No, we are not going to use AMD's x86-64 extensions."
The QT2 (now QT3) on Windows Project
The source for Qt in X is already available. It becomes a GPL/QPL port for developers to have fun with. Not that it hasn't been done already by the TT guys, but like any other unavailable backscratchers for that annoying itch, somebody will build it.
It costs nothing to use Qt to build software that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise, so long as it is not distributed outside the enterprise. Liken it to the GPL restriction: if you are bound by both the GPL and another license (say a proprietary development framework) the only distribution option is to not distribute at all.
In the same way that we can fight "reverse engineering" copyright infringement through clean-room implementation, a closed-source shop can clean-room implement, say, GNOME and all its libraries and programs. And then it would not be encumbered in the least.
It's not about linking against an API.
It's about linking against a GPLed library.