>Anybody here have anything to say in the defense of frames?
There are reasons why, sometimes, it's just not possible to load content with the functionality desired within the same window.
For example, right now I'm working on a project that requires me to query another server for a header that contains user-specific elements, such as message counts, user-specific links, etc.
Unfortunately, we're utilizing a fairly inflexible partner-provided API for the basic infrastructure of the site, but a branded header from a third party. Due to restrictions of the partner's API, the only server-side include that can be done requires that the connection be made without passing user-specific cookies. (i.e. the server goes and queries the brand's server for the header, but can't pass the user's cookies/credentials over when it does, thus, can only return code in that query that isn't user-specific.) However, due to the aforementioned need that the header support user-specific details, that solution isn't sufficient. The browser would normally provide this via cookies and/or session data, but since it's a server-to-server connection that makes the header request, that isn't possible until the API is changed to support passing browser variables and cookies in the query. So, in the meantime, an iframe will probably be used to bridge the gap. Since it's the browser that's making the request, the user's cookies/session data remains intact when the query is made, so the code returned is user-specific.
Is it ideal? No. Is it the only feasible way to solve the problem until the header is normalized or the partner's API is made more flexible? Yep! We don't live in a laboratory; we live in the real world. Sometimes, we're told to build something and handed a set of tools that isn't the best way to do the job. There isn't always time or flexibility to do it "right", as much as we wish we could convince our bosses (or in this case, partners) to do so. And in those circumstances, I'm glad we at least have the flexibility of frames/iframes to get the job done. I hate using them, but sometimes you're stuck between a deadline and an inflexible API, and there just isn't another option in the time you have.
As Meehawl has pointed out, Sprint has been doing this for years. What he didn't mention is that Sprint has offered the MyFi 5-user mobile hotspot (3G) for years, and has just released the Overdrive (4g) as well. At $99, it's sort of a no-brainer - that's what most of the single-user mobile broadband cards cost. My Sierra Wireless 3G card is getting a little long in the tooth, and this seems like a great replacement. Of course, it's not as small and easily portable as one of the mobile hotspots, but I'll give up a little room in my bag if it means my wife and/or colleagues can get online as well. Very handy.
What's funny is that the article even *mentions* a mobile hotspot. But I'd rather have a 4G version, and the ability to pull it out of the car and take it with me to meetings, coffee shops, etc. rather than be tethered to a car. With the car charger I'll be able to use it in the car if I want, but don't *have* to. There seems to be no apparent reason to get this device, unless a mobile hotspot isn't available in your area. (Which, considering this article describes a demo that took place in the UK, is quite possible.)
I wasn't suggesting that they "handle" it in the sense that they would rule against it. I was wondering how they would address it politically. CCP has said quite a bit in the past about how this sort of thing is possible, and how trying to police the world against such activity can actually be counter-productive in many ways. I was just pondering precisely how they would address it. For example, would there be a drop in standings? Would some kind of world-specific CONCORD-like police force (MPs? Commanding officers? Lynch mobs?) retaliate in any way? Would that player's ability to venture out into specific areas or accept certain types of missions be affected?
I fail to see how anything I said could possibly be construed as justifying lying or breaking contracts. What on *earth* are you talking about?
Are you talking about the device itself "lying" to Apple's software? First, I don't consider that "lying", since we're not talking about a sentient being at any point in the process.
Second, even if a device delivering an invalid identifier to software *was* somehow "lying", think about these occurences that happen EVERY DAY: Forging http headers for QA/testing purposes. Replacing chips in your vehicle for better performance. Using third-party inject/toner cartridges, lenses for cameras, batteries, etc. NONE of that would be possible if hardware didn't "lie" to software. Does this hurt the market? Of course not. It helps foster innovation, which helps the market. Consider how much those inkjet cartridges or lenses would cost you if no third-party alternative was available.
Third, Palm isn't under contract with Apple not to do it, so there's not breach of contract. (Otherwise, Apple would have filed suit.)
As an aside, you may wish to consult with a professional for your anger management issues. All I did was express an opinion, then clarified what I meant. How that makes me an asshole is beyond me. And the fact that you hope I'll die for it? Yeah, maybe it's time to go back on the meds.
I wonder how CCP will handle issues of commanders allied with the opposing force, and commanding his/her forces to their doom? This *is* the Eve universe, after all...
It's almost like you barely skimmed my post instead of actually reading it.
I'm NOT saying Apple needs to "open" their platform. I'm saying Apple shouldn't be *closing* their platform to legitimate uses such as this. Continuing to force other companies out like this *is* anti-competitive, since it prevents legitimate competition. Now, the USB-IF's ruling may change that, but the analogy stands.
You might want to read the referenced article. It states "The USB Implementers Forum has finally responded to Palm's complaints that Apple is violating its USB-IF Membership Agreement by preventing the Pre from syncing with iTunes."
In other words, Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices.
You're missing the point. Palm isn't (I don't think?) trying to claim that Apple is required to remain compatible with third-party devices. Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices for the sole purpose of remaining the only company with a device that can sync with your software.
Look, it's one thing to unintentionally break functionality due to a change your API in order to offer new features or functionality, and because you don't want to spend your resources supporting third-party devices. But it's quite another to intentionally break them just because you don't want them to use your software.
Ubiquitous car analogy: You buy a Honda Civic and your alternator breaks. Joe's Alternators has a third-party alternator that will work fine and is cheaper/has better features/whatever, but the next time you take your car in for service, they update your vehicles firmware, and now the alternator won't work. If Honda accidentally disabled the alternator because all of their new alternators have been updated to a tighter spec, hey; that's life. But does Honda have the right to disable all third-party alternators just because they want you to buy *their* alternator? Isn't that the very definition of anti-competitive?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because the law says you have rights, you actually *have* those rights. Allow me to clear that up for you:
Your rights aren't what you're granted by the law. Your rights are what you can actually enforce, be it on the street or in a courtroom.
You have the right to be treated with respect and dignity by authorities, and yet we read stories (or worse, have our own stories to tell) about being abused by law enforcement officers. You have the right to a fair and speedy trial and the right to confront your accuser, yet many "prosecutor's judges" will try to get you to waive those rights, even going so far as to ignore them unless you speak up.
I once had a judge who tried to tell me that I couldn't file motions because the trial had already begun. (WTF?! Good thing I brought caselaw!) I've had a judge tell me that I couldn't present evidence because I hadn't shown it to the officer who was there as a witness against me. (Witnesses aren't prosecutors, and don't have the right to look at your evidence. He actually asked "Come on, just show the officer your evidence. What could it hurt?" I said "My case, your Honor.") I've had a judge tell me that I had no right to a court reporter or to record my own trial. (These rights have been upheld by the CA Supreme Court, who went so far as to state that denying them was an abuse of power. When I stated that he pushed my trial to the end of the day's calendar.) I fought hard for my rights, and was rewarded with some of them. But not all of them.
Just because the law says something is so doesn't mean it is. I hope that, if he is innocent, he will be exonerated. But don't assume that, just because someone is innocent, they will be treated as such in the end. Fight for your rights, and fight for theirs too, because someday it might well be you in the courtroom, hoping that someone else will speak up for you.
This sounds suspiciously like the kind of puzzles many IT workers are asked prior to employment. Personally, I enjoy these kind of questions, regardless of how accurate my answers are. (Often, I think of solutions not expected by the tester; it's always fun to see their expression when this happens.);-) However, this kind of thing tends to really piss off your potential (or in this case, current) employees. Many well-known IT figures, PhDs, etc. have been very outspoken about these quizzes, and have turned down job offers specifically because they were asked them.
This can be great for one's self-esteem if they're good at them, or ruinous if they are not. This can be interesting, entertaining and creativity-inducing if encouraged, but overly critical and imply "grading" or class separation if required.
Be careful how you implement this; it can bite you in the ass.
The nice thing about ham is it's long range with little power and equipment requirements. In the event of a realemergency, it's nice to know that there are some extraordinary geeks with the ability to communicate quickly and clearly. In an emergency, things don't always work correctly. Microphones get lost or broken. Injuries result in a loss of the ability to speak. Who knows what might go wrong? Particularly due to the fact that Morse Code operators beatout the most popular method of handheld text-based communcation (short of e-mail or IM, anyway), I think this skill is highly undervalued. Personally, I like the idea of a bunch of knowledgable nerds out there, who can communicate almost as fast (or faster) with only pulses of noise than most of us could communicate with a microphone.
I guess what I'm getting at is that being right, saying you don't "condone" vigilantism, pointing out the negative effects of vigilantism has absolutely no value in this argument. The only way to keep people from taking the law into their own hands when a problem gets big enough is to solve the problem. If nobody can solve it, get ready for the vigilantes, everybody knows it's wrong, but it's gonna happen.
Er... excuse me? I never said I didn't condone vigilantism. I said I didn't condone this kind of action, which would likely have tens of thousands of uninformed individuals attacking a target they knew nothing about. The question was "Should we DDOS Spammers?" So, I fail to see how my giving reasons about why we should not, thereby taking a "no" position is in any way invalid, or without value. I can't condone a bunch of people randomly DDOSing people who are allegedly spammers. However, I would condone such activity if there was a method for controlling it, and preventing abuse and false positives.
I wasn't trying to "be right". I thought I made it clear at the beginning of my statement that I personally go after spammers in my spare time. I *do* condone some sorts of vigilantism when it's clear that it's necessary. In this case, come up with a method for ensuring that the DDOS is not directed at an innocent, and I'm all for it. I did something similar to a spammer's phone system once, with the blessings of both the Berkeley and Los Angeles Police Departments. I don't see a problem when one does one's proper homework. But by default, the question here doesn't involve a few concerned citizens who will do their due diligence. It must, by nature, either involve massive numbers of the "me too" crowd, or a few individuals who will take over thousands of machines. The only exception would be something like the Lycos product. But even then, who makes sure Lycos is doing the right thing? It's much more likely that a centralized authority would be more careful than the average spamavenger, but it's still a dangerous precedent.
Show me a way to do this safely, without paving the way for massive abuse of the system, and I'm all for it. But what prevents this system from being turned on someone who's server becomes compromised without his/her knowledge? (Don't give me any crap about "they should have secured their server." There's always a new exploit, and most good admins know that there's no such thing as 100%. Education solves *that* kind of issue, not blindly attacking them.) Even worse, what prevents someone with a bone to pick (as most activists do) from attacking someone who might or might not deserve it, but that the individual targetting the attack decides needs to serve as an example? Let me put it another way: Would you be okay with the idea of a law being passed allowing any cop who decides that someone is guilty to beat the truth out of them? Obviously, the potential for disastrous abuses are tremendous. Unless there's a method for controlling that abuse... no, I can't condone it. I've been to countries where these kinds of protections just don't exist, and every time I return, I feel grateful. I realize that, despite the many problems cropping up, the massive powers being handed over to various federal and local authorities, and the many other things that I consider to be making a farce of our supposed "freedoms", I still love my country, and know that I'm better off here than almost anywhere else.
Allow me to re-explain my position: I think some types of vigilantism is a VERY necessary thing. I personally tend to get involved in situations that would otherwise result in the severe injury of other people, were I not present. Four days ago I stopped a psychologically unbalanced individual from attacking a few elderly people in a hospital, while I was filling a prescription. If not for vigilantism, I would not have survived my childhood. But it's an interesting word, "vigilantism". It doesn't just mean one who ta
There's another name for this sort of activity: "Lynching" There's a good reason why one isn't supposed to take the law into one's own hands. It's because, however noble your intentions, there are no checks or balances on your actions; no safeties or limits.
I HATE spammers. When I'm bored, I shut them down by tracking relevant data about them, and reporting them to their hosts and domain registrars. But who decides who the next "spammer" is? When I get spammed, even that isn't strong enough evidence for me. My next step is to ensure that it isn't an isolated incident, and so I go search the web to see if they've been added to a database/blacklist, or are on any of a number of spammer watchlists. Once I've got enough evidence to be able to convince a host/registrar, as well as myself, THEN I take action. But... how many vigilantes would take these extra steps? How many would simply go along with the crowd? "Hey! It's a spammer! GET HIM!!!"
As much as I hate what spammers do, I simply can't condone this kind of action, without some kind of safety net for false positives. We're seeing something of a double standard here. What if, instead of discussing actions against "spammers", we were discussing actions against "terrorists"? Biometric tracking? Millimeter wave scanners? RealID? We've all seen how many people get strip-searched, end up on no-fly lists, get arrested for not having the right paperwork or IDs, and have any number of other civil rights violated. We're constantly demanding that we have some sort of guarantee that we're not going to end up flagging the wrong individuals. I agree wholeheartedly; we'd damn well better ensure we're flagging the right people, or the system is pointless, and the "terrorists" will end up laughing all the way back to the compound. So... where's our safety net here, folks?
If we could legitimately do something like this, there wouldn't be a need for it, because it would mean the authorities would already be doing so. What happens on the day someone decides that Bob's Direct Mail service is "close enough" to spam, and we should start targeting them? How about Bob's Direct Mail Order? Bob's Direct Shipping? Bob's Joint? Who decides the next target? What if it's just a personal vendetta, and isn't even accurate? What happens when 20,000 people take that person's word for it, without doing any of their own research?
Yes, something needs to be done about the spammers, but this sets a dangerous precident. What's the solution? Hell if I know, though I suspect it's a combination of legislation and education. I just know that this has enough problems to have been condemned by almost everyone here, if it had come from the opposite direction.
"Linux runs on just about anything, whereas Windows has a targeted platform focus," he said, adding that one of the main reasons people started looking at Linux was to avoid vendor lock-in.
"But the different Linux distributions, particularly those from Red Hat and Novell's SuSE Linux, also essentially lock them in as switching from one to the other is by no means easy, although probably not as difficult as migrating from Windows to Linux. But it is a lot more difficult than many of the distributors allow users to believe," Johnson said.
What?! How on earth is the difficulty of installing a new operating system IN ANY WAY comparable to the difficulty of being physically prevented from doing something because of vendor-installed hardware, or even just vendor-installed proprietary software? Much of the vendor-installed software is specifically engineered to make it more difficult to alter or remove it. Unless I'm mistaken, no one in the Linix distro world does that... not even Apple. Is the author of this story changing the definition of "vendor lock-in" now?
If you're running OS X on a Mac, you're already covered. All of your logins and passwords can be stored in OS X's "Keychain", which allows easy access to all of your passwords by simply logging in to OS X. All of your passwords (that you allow) will be automatically remembered and will populate any appropriate fields. In addition, individual logins and passwords can be accessed by typing your login info (for your OS X account), and it will reveal your login info for that particular item.
For more info on Keychain Access, read one of many of Apple's support pages on it. It's great, and completely integrated into the operating system. You don't even have to think about it. Any time you enter a username and/or password for something (in any application, web site, etc.) you'll be asked if you want the login information to be added to your Keychain. You can allow it to be added, ignore it this time, or never allow it for the particular site/application in question. You can even manually add items that have nothing to do with logging in. (Combinations for locks, or other confidential information.) It's a snap.:-)
They don't even mention the possibility that it has anything to do with Gypsies, nor is it flagged as offensive.
Yes, as we all know, there's only one definition for each word, right?. Oxford lists TWO definitions for the word, and that's just the compact version:
gyp1 /jip/ (also gip)
noun Brit. informal pain or discomfort.
gyp2 /jip/ informal
verb (gypped, gypping) cheat or swindle.
noun a swindle.
Perhaps you might consider looking inmorethanone place. Miriam Webster, Cambridge, and yes, Oxford all agree on this term. I'm sorry if your dictionary isn't up to snuff. Do your research before flaming.
From UrbanDictionary.com:
Used as a term to describe when one has received less than they paid for. Most people do not realize it's a racist term that stems from nomadic 'gypsies' who are stereotyped as theiving criminals.
"Man, look at your glass. You got gypped on the Coke."
Look, this wasn't intended to slight ANYONE. My intent was to educate, then let people make their own choice. Not everyone knows this, as another poster previously noted. I didn't take offense at this issue personally, as it didn't seem to be intended as a derogatory statement. I tried to make that clear in my first post. Apparently I failed. I apologize. I didn't call the poster an insensitive clod, or attack him in any way. I simply said "You might consider..." and left it at that. I'm having trouble seeing where I caused offense, but it wasn't my intention. If there is any doubt in your mind, perhaps you should check my past posts, in which I tend to score 5 once every four posts because I try to HELP PEOPLE. I'm not in the habit of intentionally alienating anyone, and I apologize if my intentions were unclear. Relax already.
But it's fun to type "nigger" at all these people, isn't it?
So do it. Lose the quotes.
No one's more annoying than self-hating loves-to-say-"nigger" guy.
As one of the minorities listed above, I have witnessed and personally experienced such discrimination. I have never used such a term, other than as a reference to said term. Period. For someone who claims what your last sentence did, you sure used it quite a bit. But then... I suppose I should have expected that from an AC.
This is not intended to be a flame or troll, but as constructive criticism. You might want to refrain from the term "jipped". The root word is "gyp", which comes from "gypsy". This refers to the idea that all gypsies were thieves, and not to be trusted. It has become a derogatory term similar to "jewed". I assume that you would not use the terms "chink", "spic" or "nigger" here, so you might want to consider what effect using terms such as these might have.
This is only intended to be advice, from a political perspective. If you disagree, that's fine. It's just my opinion, which may be quite flawed.;-)
Gates had rich parents, so he could afford to try and fail and try again until he succeeded. I don't say this to discount the Gates' intelligence, I think he was brilliant in many aspects. But I don't think it was so much luck as it was perserverence (which was facilitated by money). Now I don't know if the person asking slashdot has rich parents or not, but if not (and those two friends he's talking about aren't rich), I think trying to start a business from scratch straight out of high school is a horrible idea. Yes, it might succeed, but chances are it'll fail, and then you'll be in a really bad situation which it'll take a long time and a lot of work to get out of.
But the original poster isn't asking for advice about creating a startup right out of High School. He's asking for advice on how to best go about getting a better job than a burger joint, or about getting interviewers to consider him for intern positions.
He's not even planning to build his startup right after high school. He's speaking of creating one later, during college. He seems to have put some thought into this, based on the fact that he's doing his due diligence on getting a good internship, so that he can get a good job, so that he can get the experience necessary to create a startup and help it to succeed.
It's possible this is simply just a case of "I read Paul Graham, and now I want to be an IPO millionaire", but I don't think so. "Convincing friends" to go into business during college does not equal immature plans to build a condemned business plan. It just means he's beginning to develop an IDEA. Perhaps he and his friends *will* do such a thing, but it's a long way off. I think it's more likely that he'll meet people more suited for the idea later, during college, and that he and they will build a startup, or develop a business idea, or whatever. Hell, he may decide "Forget the startup idea; I'm going to take this job with XYZ Widgets, and see what happens." That's all a long way off, and he's got time. Regardless, all the guy said was (paraphrased) "I want to do something with my life. I've got some ideas, but my starting point is getting a good job or internship. What should I do?"
Given that, why are we spending so much time trying to knock down his apparent drive, instead telling him to work at a burger shop, or go party? I worked at a pizza place when I was 16, then found a local internet startup that later hired me, which became my first solid bit of experience. This kid's goals are right in line with that. Why dissuade him? Yes, many of the comments on here are accurate. Yes, there are social pros to working for a fast-food chain. But that's what people who don't know they have other options do. There are just as many social opportunities at an internet start-up, and those options allow for useful, professional networking later in life. This kid knows he's got options, and is following them up. Stop trying to convince him not to, and find a way to help him. Any other discussion is off-topic, immaterial and irrelevant.
Perhaps you should read my post again. I didn't say anything about what anyone *should* do. I said "Oh, look: those individuals and organizations who missed their chance now have another one." This is bad because...?
Yes, it's true; many companies *do* register every version of their business name they can think of. So what does ABC laundry service do when ABC widgets already has.com,.net and.org? They register.biz or.us. What about ABC travel? They go for.travel. It's not just about freeing up.com and.net domains. It's about more choice as well.
Yes, I'm certain it will generate more revenue from the many companies who are die-hard brand protectors out there. But there *is* another aspect of this that is beneficial: Those individuals and organizations who didn't jump on the bandwagon quick enough now have other options. And personally, I think that's a good thing.:-)
Nobody encouraged me and I went from poor white trash to upper middle class in less than ten years. I proved with code and hacks that I was a great programmer/technowiz.
Real geeks don't need external encouragment. Geeks hack and get things done for fun.
Instead of teaching humility with your reponse, you teach compassion. Good Job. A liberal reponse to a person who may not be qualified for the job at hand, but yet deserves one from your point of view.
FWI, compassion is for those who know and deserve another chance.
Congratulations. You bootstrapped yourself out of a situation that might have otherwise gone another way. But you missed my point entirely.
Bill Gates dropped out of high school to build a boat for sixty grand. He dropped out of college to found Microsoft. He did wonderfully, from a financial perspective, but I don't think that qualifies us to say that education isn't important to those who want to make it, out there in the real world. Gates got lucky, as you probably did to a certain extent as well.
My post wasn't intended to be compassionate. The point I was trying to make about encouragement was in response to many posts that ignored the topic entirely. There's a big difference between helping to find a solution and saying "Go find a prom date." or "People who live in Texas are idiots." I don't know whether or not the poster of this question is qualified or not, but knocking him down when he's genuinely asking for help is just plain stupid.
The fact that you did well in spite of your circumstances is great. But it sounds like you think everyone in your situation should be able to do the same thing. The world just doesn't work that way. If it did, poverty wouldn't exist. But it does, and not just for those who have no drive to succeed. MANY people out there are trying, and failing, because of bad luck, lack or available resources, and lack of support. Yes, one can make it without encouragement. But if you do any real research into child development, you'll learn that children (and teenagers and adults, for that matter) are simply more successful when given opportunities, and encouraged to use them. There's a reason why private schools with all the nice equipment and a lower student/teacher ratio are so expensive. It's because, with all of those resources, and the constant encouragement to take all of those things and USE them to make something of themselves, it's just more likely that they will succeed.
I hope you figure it out before you show your children that you care more about them being "real geeks" (or whatever) than you do about how well they actually do in life.
First, I must apologize for the reception you've received to your question thus far. The ONE THING someone your age needs above all else is encouragement, which is something sorely lacking in most of the answers I've read. The fact that you stated your experience isn't bragging; you're trying to make it clear what direction you want to go in. I'm appalled at some of the things that have been said to someone who is actually going out and doing something with their life. (Jealousy that they did not, perhaps?) However... the silver lining is that such a response *will* help prepare you for the real world, which is unfortunately much like this at times. Don't let it discourage you; keep going anyway, and with just a little luck, you WILL succeed. Taking moronic insults and banter like this personally is pointless and a waste of time. File it away in the "This person is unreasonable and will waste my time" folder, and keep moving.
I can tell you from direct experience that there are MANY opportunities available to someone your age. I'm not familiar with the state of things in Texas, but everywhere I've tried (California, Florida, New York), there are always many people out there who see something of value in a kid with drive, and technical interest/ability. What I'm about to tell you about will work for getting you either a job or an internship (I've gotten many of both this way), though it may take a little tweaking based on your area and specific use. What it really boils down to is drive and determination, but some good planning beforehand can greatly reduce the amount of wasted time.
First, make a list of all of the different types of things you can think of that you might want to do, later in life. Obviously, you're going to want to make sure your internship matches your potential career(s), so this first step is important.
Next, come up with a list of ANY company in your area you can think of that might offer jobs in this same field. The fact that you're currently focussing on getting an internship instead of a job is irrelevant right now; a good internship requires the job that will support it to exist.
Now pull out a pencil, your computer, or whatever your favorite writing tool is and write yourself a script. Short, to the point, but cheerful and polite are the rules, here. "Hi, my name is Bob Smith, and I'm interested in interning/working for your company. May I speak with your hiring manager/HR department to discuss this?" Etc. Try it out on your parents, teachers, etc. Ask them to find ways to answer "No" and hang up on you, then eliminate those questions from your script. Remember that your script is just your plan, and that it will need to be flexible. You know, strategy vs. tactics. Testing it out on people will help show you which parts will likely progress normally, and which can go in any direction. Try to avoid questions that *can* be answered with a "No": "Hi, my name is Bob Smith, and I'm very interesting in interning in your department. I'd love to come in and chat with you about the possibility. I'm free this Thursday and Friday, anytime after 3:30 pm. When is best for you?" See? No way to say "No" without changing the conversation around.
Once you've got something that will allow you to get what you want without being too forceful, start calling up the companies on your list. It's fine to read from the script, though by now you'll probably have it memorized more than you'd ever want to anyway. Call, call, and call some more. If you get a nibble, don't go nuts and scare them off, but definitely show interest and drive. Remember, in their eyes, you're just an irresponsible kid. There's plenty of reasons NOT to hire you or take you on as an intern, so show them why they should. Don't be pushy, but show that you're not a flake, and that you have what it takes. If you get something good, congratulations! If not, don't give up. This WILL require many calls just to get the hang of it, and many more to be successful. Call the least
This is not to make it more difficult for spammers to receive e-mail. It is to make it more difficult for their messages to make it into our inboxes.
Challenge/Response systems stop spammers by requiring any mail sent to a particular address to be cleared through a whitelist of sorts. If the sender is not found in the whitelist, they are presented with a challenge. If they successfully answer the challenge, they are added to the whitelist and not challenged again; all other messages sent from this address will be allowed through.
For comment spam, it works in a similar fashion, though is often required for every post. However, this can also be avoided through the use of cookies, sessions, logins, or other recognition techniques.
The point is that the more difficult it is to pass through such measures with automated tools, AIs, scripts, bots or other devices, the less likely a spammer is to easily make money from their efforts. Of course, this would only put a serious dent in their income if adopted on a massive scale, but at the very least will have an impact on the number of spam messages that those who implement such measures will see.
The federal government is considering outlawing this abusive practise. I met with a senator from SC and another from GA in the past month wrt this issue. They, like most people I know, hate it, and hate the artificial barrier it creates for Internet usage.
I work at a school for the deaf and blind, and captcha's make it impossible for the blind or many of the vision impaired to do many things on the Internet without having help from someone with good vision. Even I, with my cheap LCD monitor and 73 year-old eyes, have trouble reading the Yahoo ones.
I find the classification of these measures as "abusive" to be flawed at best, and misleading at worst. CAPTCHAS are a desperate response to an immoral group of people who will stop at nothing to make money with absolutely no regard for the problems, cost, and distress they cause their targets, who hide behind the first amendment when possible, or using illegal techniques when not. I hate having to deal with them myself, but I understand the necessity of their existence, however unpleasant, and will continue to deal with them as long as is necessary, as such.
Below are several problems mentioned with CAPTCHAs, as well as some possible solutions:
1] Accessibility
Problem: Blind/visually impaired users cannot reliably read the altered text.
Solution: Audio file accompanies every graphic, to be read on command. (However, still crackable with speech recognition.)
2] Referring test to 3rd parties
Problem: Spammers have other membership-based site users (i.e. porn sites) do the test.
Solution 1: Image is generated randomly, based on a user session, requiring an actual visit to your site; copying will be less effective unless the images are compared later... which may be quite some time if there are a large number of images and/or if the images are generated live on the server, rather than being stored files.
Solution 2: Include text imbedded in the image (and audio file) specifically referencing the site it is to be utilized with exclusively, requesting that the user report violations of duplication/unauthorized usage, and possibly offering a small reward for information leading to the arrest/conviction/judgment against the violator.
3] AI text processing
Problem: AI can be complex enough to identity letters, no matter how obfuscated, until such characters must be so distorted that even a human cannot decipher them.
Solution: Ask a logic question, present a photograph, or require another means of challenge/response than simple text recognition.
Example 1: Present a photograph of an apple or otherwise easily-spelled object, and ask the user to type the name into a field, or allow the user to select from a group of mildly distorted text, to avoid spelling issues. (However, this issue raises the accessibility issue again.)
Example 2: Present a short list of slightly distorted words (with audio files available for each word), and ask a short logic/history/other question. (One | Two | Three | Four | Orange - Of these words, one does not match. Please type the number of letters in this word, in numeric format. (Example: Apple = 5) This test is to be used exclusively by abc123.org. Please let us know if you see this elsewhere, as this means it was stolen.)
Until it is financially infeasible for a spammer to continue to do business, we will all be forced to deal with the messes they make. This is a challenge/response system, not an attempt to abuse the users of the internet. If there was a better way to solve this problem than hitting "delete" (which must happen hundreds if not thousands of times per day, for some of use), or using filters (which ALL give false positives, eventually), you can be sure that millions of semi-knowledgeable or better computer users would have chosen this path. To claim that such measures, which attempt to HELP people are abuse... perhaps you would like to re-evaluate your claim.
Slashdot Mirror
>Anybody here have anything to say in the defense of frames?
There are reasons why, sometimes, it's just not possible to load content with the functionality desired within the same window.
For example, right now I'm working on a project that requires me to query another server for a header that contains user-specific elements, such as message counts, user-specific links, etc.
Unfortunately, we're utilizing a fairly inflexible partner-provided API for the basic infrastructure of the site, but a branded header from a third party. Due to restrictions of the partner's API, the only server-side include that can be done requires that the connection be made without passing user-specific cookies. (i.e. the server goes and queries the brand's server for the header, but can't pass the user's cookies/credentials over when it does, thus, can only return code in that query that isn't user-specific.) However, due to the aforementioned need that the header support user-specific details, that solution isn't sufficient. The browser would normally provide this via cookies and/or session data, but since it's a server-to-server connection that makes the header request, that isn't possible until the API is changed to support passing browser variables and cookies in the query. So, in the meantime, an iframe will probably be used to bridge the gap. Since it's the browser that's making the request, the user's cookies/session data remains intact when the query is made, so the code returned is user-specific.
Is it ideal? No. Is it the only feasible way to solve the problem until the header is normalized or the partner's API is made more flexible? Yep! We don't live in a laboratory; we live in the real world. Sometimes, we're told to build something and handed a set of tools that isn't the best way to do the job. There isn't always time or flexibility to do it "right", as much as we wish we could convince our bosses (or in this case, partners) to do so. And in those circumstances, I'm glad we at least have the flexibility of frames/iframes to get the job done. I hate using them, but sometimes you're stuck between a deadline and an inflexible API, and there just isn't another option in the time you have.
"I was jes' follerin' orders, boss!"
As Meehawl has pointed out, Sprint has been doing this for years. What he didn't mention is that Sprint has offered the MyFi 5-user mobile hotspot (3G) for years, and has just released the Overdrive (4g) as well. At $99, it's sort of a no-brainer - that's what most of the single-user mobile broadband cards cost. My Sierra Wireless 3G card is getting a little long in the tooth, and this seems like a great replacement. Of course, it's not as small and easily portable as one of the mobile hotspots, but I'll give up a little room in my bag if it means my wife and/or colleagues can get online as well. Very handy. What's funny is that the article even *mentions* a mobile hotspot. But I'd rather have a 4G version, and the ability to pull it out of the car and take it with me to meetings, coffee shops, etc. rather than be tethered to a car. With the car charger I'll be able to use it in the car if I want, but don't *have* to. There seems to be no apparent reason to get this device, unless a mobile hotspot isn't available in your area. (Which, considering this article describes a demo that took place in the UK, is quite possible.)
I wasn't suggesting that they "handle" it in the sense that they would rule against it. I was wondering how they would address it politically. CCP has said quite a bit in the past about how this sort of thing is possible, and how trying to police the world against such activity can actually be counter-productive in many ways. I was just pondering precisely how they would address it. For example, would there be a drop in standings? Would some kind of world-specific CONCORD-like police force (MPs? Commanding officers? Lynch mobs?) retaliate in any way? Would that player's ability to venture out into specific areas or accept certain types of missions be affected?
I fail to see how anything I said could possibly be construed as justifying lying or breaking contracts. What on *earth* are you talking about?
Are you talking about the device itself "lying" to Apple's software? First, I don't consider that "lying", since we're not talking about a sentient being at any point in the process.
Second, even if a device delivering an invalid identifier to software *was* somehow "lying", think about these occurences that happen EVERY DAY: Forging http headers for QA/testing purposes. Replacing chips in your vehicle for better performance. Using third-party inject/toner cartridges, lenses for cameras, batteries, etc. NONE of that would be possible if hardware didn't "lie" to software. Does this hurt the market? Of course not. It helps foster innovation, which helps the market. Consider how much those inkjet cartridges or lenses would cost you if no third-party alternative was available.
Third, Palm isn't under contract with Apple not to do it, so there's not breach of contract. (Otherwise, Apple would have filed suit.)
As an aside, you may wish to consult with a professional for your anger management issues. All I did was express an opinion, then clarified what I meant. How that makes me an asshole is beyond me. And the fact that you hope I'll die for it? Yeah, maybe it's time to go back on the meds.
I wonder how CCP will handle issues of commanders allied with the opposing force, and commanding his/her forces to their doom? This *is* the Eve universe, after all...
It's almost like you barely skimmed my post instead of actually reading it.
I'm NOT saying Apple needs to "open" their platform. I'm saying Apple shouldn't be *closing* their platform to legitimate uses such as this. Continuing to force other companies out like this *is* anti-competitive, since it prevents legitimate competition. Now, the USB-IF's ruling may change that, but the analogy stands.
You might want to read the referenced article. It states "The USB Implementers Forum has finally responded to Palm's complaints that Apple is violating its USB-IF Membership Agreement by preventing the Pre from syncing with iTunes."
In other words, Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices.
You're missing the point. Palm isn't (I don't think?) trying to claim that Apple is required to remain compatible with third-party devices. Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices for the sole purpose of remaining the only company with a device that can sync with your software.
Look, it's one thing to unintentionally break functionality due to a change your API in order to offer new features or functionality, and because you don't want to spend your resources supporting third-party devices. But it's quite another to intentionally break them just because you don't want them to use your software.
Ubiquitous car analogy: You buy a Honda Civic and your alternator breaks. Joe's Alternators has a third-party alternator that will work fine and is cheaper/has better features/whatever, but the next time you take your car in for service, they update your vehicles firmware, and now the alternator won't work. If Honda accidentally disabled the alternator because all of their new alternators have been updated to a tighter spec, hey; that's life. But does Honda have the right to disable all third-party alternators just because they want you to buy *their* alternator? Isn't that the very definition of anti-competitive?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because the law says you have rights, you actually *have* those rights. Allow me to clear that up for you:
Your rights aren't what you're granted by the law. Your rights are what you can actually enforce, be it on the street or in a courtroom.
You have the right to be treated with respect and dignity by authorities, and yet we read stories (or worse, have our own stories to tell) about being abused by law enforcement officers. You have the right to a fair and speedy trial and the right to confront your accuser, yet many "prosecutor's judges" will try to get you to waive those rights, even going so far as to ignore them unless you speak up.
I once had a judge who tried to tell me that I couldn't file motions because the trial had already begun. (WTF?! Good thing I brought caselaw!) I've had a judge tell me that I couldn't present evidence because I hadn't shown it to the officer who was there as a witness against me. (Witnesses aren't prosecutors, and don't have the right to look at your evidence. He actually asked "Come on, just show the officer your evidence. What could it hurt?" I said "My case, your Honor.") I've had a judge tell me that I had no right to a court reporter or to record my own trial. (These rights have been upheld by the CA Supreme Court, who went so far as to state that denying them was an abuse of power. When I stated that he pushed my trial to the end of the day's calendar.) I fought hard for my rights, and was rewarded with some of them. But not all of them.
Just because the law says something is so doesn't mean it is. I hope that, if he is innocent, he will be exonerated. But don't assume that, just because someone is innocent, they will be treated as such in the end. Fight for your rights, and fight for theirs too, because someday it might well be you in the courtroom, hoping that someone else will speak up for you.
This sounds suspiciously like the kind of puzzles many IT workers are asked prior to employment. Personally, I enjoy these kind of questions, regardless of how accurate my answers are. (Often, I think of solutions not expected by the tester; it's always fun to see their expression when this happens.) ;-) However, this kind of thing tends to really piss off your potential (or in this case, current) employees. Many well-known IT figures, PhDs, etc. have been very outspoken about these quizzes, and have turned down job offers specifically because they were asked them.
This can be great for one's self-esteem if they're good at them, or ruinous if they are not. This can be interesting, entertaining and creativity-inducing if encouraged, but overly critical and imply "grading" or class separation if required.
Be careful how you implement this; it can bite you in the ass.
The nice thing about ham is it's long range with little power and equipment requirements. In the event of a real emergency, it's nice to know that there are some extraordinary geeks with the ability to communicate quickly and clearly. In an emergency, things don't always work correctly. Microphones get lost or broken. Injuries result in a loss of the ability to speak. Who knows what might go wrong? Particularly due to the fact that Morse Code operators beat out the most popular method of handheld text-based communcation (short of e-mail or IM, anyway), I think this skill is highly undervalued. Personally, I like the idea of a bunch of knowledgable nerds out there, who can communicate almost as fast (or faster) with only pulses of noise than most of us could communicate with a microphone.
Er... excuse me? I never said I didn't condone vigilantism. I said I didn't condone this kind of action, which would likely have tens of thousands of uninformed individuals attacking a target they knew nothing about. The question was "Should we DDOS Spammers?" So, I fail to see how my giving reasons about why we should not, thereby taking a "no" position is in any way invalid, or without value. I can't condone a bunch of people randomly DDOSing people who are allegedly spammers. However, I would condone such activity if there was a method for controlling it, and preventing abuse and false positives.
I wasn't trying to "be right". I thought I made it clear at the beginning of my statement that I personally go after spammers in my spare time. I *do* condone some sorts of vigilantism when it's clear that it's necessary. In this case, come up with a method for ensuring that the DDOS is not directed at an innocent, and I'm all for it. I did something similar to a spammer's phone system once, with the blessings of both the Berkeley and Los Angeles Police Departments. I don't see a problem when one does one's proper homework. But by default, the question here doesn't involve a few concerned citizens who will do their due diligence. It must, by nature, either involve massive numbers of the "me too" crowd, or a few individuals who will take over thousands of machines. The only exception would be something like the Lycos product. But even then, who makes sure Lycos is doing the right thing? It's much more likely that a centralized authority would be more careful than the average spamavenger, but it's still a dangerous precedent.
Show me a way to do this safely, without paving the way for massive abuse of the system, and I'm all for it. But what prevents this system from being turned on someone who's server becomes compromised without his/her knowledge? (Don't give me any crap about "they should have secured their server." There's always a new exploit, and most good admins know that there's no such thing as 100%. Education solves *that* kind of issue, not blindly attacking them.) Even worse, what prevents someone with a bone to pick (as most activists do) from attacking someone who might or might not deserve it, but that the individual targetting the attack decides needs to serve as an example? Let me put it another way: Would you be okay with the idea of a law being passed allowing any cop who decides that someone is guilty to beat the truth out of them? Obviously, the potential for disastrous abuses are tremendous. Unless there's a method for controlling that abuse... no, I can't condone it. I've been to countries where these kinds of protections just don't exist, and every time I return, I feel grateful. I realize that, despite the many problems cropping up, the massive powers being handed over to various federal and local authorities, and the many other things that I consider to be making a farce of our supposed "freedoms", I still love my country, and know that I'm better off here than almost anywhere else.
Allow me to re-explain my position: I think some types of vigilantism is a VERY necessary thing. I personally tend to get involved in situations that would otherwise result in the severe injury of other people, were I not present. Four days ago I stopped a psychologically unbalanced individual from attacking a few elderly people in a hospital, while I was filling a prescription. If not for vigilantism, I would not have survived my childhood. But it's an interesting word, "vigilantism". It doesn't just mean one who ta
There's another name for this sort of activity: "Lynching" There's a good reason why one isn't supposed to take the law into one's own hands. It's because, however noble your intentions, there are no checks or balances on your actions; no safeties or limits.
I HATE spammers. When I'm bored, I shut them down by tracking relevant data about them, and reporting them to their hosts and domain registrars. But who decides who the next "spammer" is? When I get spammed, even that isn't strong enough evidence for me. My next step is to ensure that it isn't an isolated incident, and so I go search the web to see if they've been added to a database/blacklist, or are on any of a number of spammer watchlists. Once I've got enough evidence to be able to convince a host/registrar, as well as myself, THEN I take action. But... how many vigilantes would take these extra steps? How many would simply go along with the crowd? "Hey! It's a spammer! GET HIM!!!"
As much as I hate what spammers do, I simply can't condone this kind of action, without some kind of safety net for false positives. We're seeing something of a double standard here. What if, instead of discussing actions against "spammers", we were discussing actions against "terrorists"? Biometric tracking? Millimeter wave scanners? RealID? We've all seen how many people get strip-searched, end up on no-fly lists, get arrested for not having the right paperwork or IDs, and have any number of other civil rights violated. We're constantly demanding that we have some sort of guarantee that we're not going to end up flagging the wrong individuals. I agree wholeheartedly; we'd damn well better ensure we're flagging the right people, or the system is pointless, and the "terrorists" will end up laughing all the way back to the compound. So... where's our safety net here, folks?
If we could legitimately do something like this, there wouldn't be a need for it, because it would mean the authorities would already be doing so. What happens on the day someone decides that Bob's Direct Mail service is "close enough" to spam, and we should start targeting them? How about Bob's Direct Mail Order? Bob's Direct Shipping? Bob's Joint? Who decides the next target? What if it's just a personal vendetta, and isn't even accurate? What happens when 20,000 people take that person's word for it, without doing any of their own research?
Yes, something needs to be done about the spammers, but this sets a dangerous precident. What's the solution? Hell if I know, though I suspect it's a combination of legislation and education. I just know that this has enough problems to have been condemned by almost everyone here, if it had come from the opposite direction.
From the article:
What?! How on earth is the difficulty of installing a new operating system IN ANY WAY comparable to the difficulty of being physically prevented from doing something because of vendor-installed hardware, or even just vendor-installed proprietary software? Much of the vendor-installed software is specifically engineered to make it more difficult to alter or remove it. Unless I'm mistaken, no one in the Linix distro world does that... not even Apple. Is the author of this story changing the definition of "vendor lock-in" now?
If you're running OS X on a Mac, you're already covered. All of your logins and passwords can be stored in OS X's "Keychain", which allows easy access to all of your passwords by simply logging in to OS X. All of your passwords (that you allow) will be automatically remembered and will populate any appropriate fields. In addition, individual logins and passwords can be accessed by typing your login info (for your OS X account), and it will reveal your login info for that particular item.
For more info on Keychain Access, read one of many of Apple's support pages on it. It's great, and completely integrated into the operating system. You don't even have to think about it. Any time you enter a username and/or password for something (in any application, web site, etc.) you'll be asked if you want the login information to be added to your Keychain. You can allow it to be added, ignore it this time, or never allow it for the particular site/application in question. You can even manually add items that have nothing to do with logging in. (Combinations for locks, or other confidential information.) It's a snap. :-)
Yes, as we all know, there's only one definition for each word, right?. Oxford lists TWO definitions for the word, and that's just the compact version:
Perhaps you might consider looking in more than one place. Miriam Webster, Cambridge, and yes, Oxford all agree on this term. I'm sorry if your dictionary isn't up to snuff. Do your research before flaming.From UrbanDictionary.com:
Look, this wasn't intended to slight ANYONE. My intent was to educate, then let people make their own choice. Not everyone knows this, as another poster previously noted. I didn't take offense at this issue personally, as it didn't seem to be intended as a derogatory statement. I tried to make that clear in my first post. Apparently I failed. I apologize. I didn't call the poster an insensitive clod, or attack him in any way. I simply said "You might consider..." and left it at that. I'm having trouble seeing where I caused offense, but it wasn't my intention. If there is any doubt in your mind, perhaps you should check my past posts, in which I tend to score 5 once every four posts because I try to HELP PEOPLE. I'm not in the habit of intentionally alienating anyone, and I apologize if my intentions were unclear. Relax already.
As one of the minorities listed above, I have witnessed and personally experienced such discrimination. I have never used such a term, other than as a reference to said term. Period. For someone who claims what your last sentence did, you sure used it quite a bit. But then... I suppose I should have expected that from an AC.
This is not intended to be a flame or troll, but as constructive criticism. You might want to refrain from the term "jipped". The root word is "gyp", which comes from "gypsy". This refers to the idea that all gypsies were thieves, and not to be trusted. It has become a derogatory term similar to "jewed". I assume that you would not use the terms "chink", "spic" or "nigger" here, so you might want to consider what effect using terms such as these might have.
This is only intended to be advice, from a political perspective. If you disagree, that's fine. It's just my opinion, which may be quite flawed. ;-)
But the original poster isn't asking for advice about creating a startup right out of High School. He's asking for advice on how to best go about getting a better job than a burger joint, or about getting interviewers to consider him for intern positions.
He's not even planning to build his startup right after high school. He's speaking of creating one later, during college. He seems to have put some thought into this, based on the fact that he's doing his due diligence on getting a good internship, so that he can get a good job, so that he can get the experience necessary to create a startup and help it to succeed.
It's possible this is simply just a case of "I read Paul Graham, and now I want to be an IPO millionaire", but I don't think so. "Convincing friends" to go into business during college does not equal immature plans to build a condemned business plan. It just means he's beginning to develop an IDEA. Perhaps he and his friends *will* do such a thing, but it's a long way off. I think it's more likely that he'll meet people more suited for the idea later, during college, and that he and they will build a startup, or develop a business idea, or whatever. Hell, he may decide "Forget the startup idea; I'm going to take this job with XYZ Widgets, and see what happens." That's all a long way off, and he's got time. Regardless, all the guy said was (paraphrased) "I want to do something with my life. I've got some ideas, but my starting point is getting a good job or internship. What should I do?"
Given that, why are we spending so much time trying to knock down his apparent drive, instead telling him to work at a burger shop, or go party? I worked at a pizza place when I was 16, then found a local internet startup that later hired me, which became my first solid bit of experience. This kid's goals are right in line with that. Why dissuade him? Yes, many of the comments on here are accurate. Yes, there are social pros to working for a fast-food chain. But that's what people who don't know they have other options do. There are just as many social opportunities at an internet start-up, and those options allow for useful, professional networking later in life. This kid knows he's got options, and is following them up. Stop trying to convince him not to, and find a way to help him. Any other discussion is off-topic, immaterial and irrelevant.
Perhaps you should read my post again. I didn't say anything about what anyone *should* do. I said "Oh, look: those individuals and organizations who missed their chance now have another one." This is bad because...?
Yes, it's true; many companies *do* register every version of their business name they can think of. So what does ABC laundry service do when ABC widgets already has .com, .net and .org? They register .biz or .us. What about ABC travel? They go for .travel. It's not just about freeing up .com and .net domains. It's about more choice as well.
Yes, I'm certain it will generate more revenue from the many companies who are die-hard brand protectors out there. But there *is* another aspect of this that is beneficial: Those individuals and organizations who didn't jump on the bandwagon quick enough now have other options. And personally, I think that's a good thing. :-)
Congratulations. You bootstrapped yourself out of a situation that might have otherwise gone another way. But you missed my point entirely.
Bill Gates dropped out of high school to build a boat for sixty grand. He dropped out of college to found Microsoft. He did wonderfully, from a financial perspective, but I don't think that qualifies us to say that education isn't important to those who want to make it, out there in the real world. Gates got lucky, as you probably did to a certain extent as well.
My post wasn't intended to be compassionate. The point I was trying to make about encouragement was in response to many posts that ignored the topic entirely. There's a big difference between helping to find a solution and saying "Go find a prom date." or "People who live in Texas are idiots." I don't know whether or not the poster of this question is qualified or not, but knocking him down when he's genuinely asking for help is just plain stupid.
The fact that you did well in spite of your circumstances is great. But it sounds like you think everyone in your situation should be able to do the same thing. The world just doesn't work that way. If it did, poverty wouldn't exist. But it does, and not just for those who have no drive to succeed. MANY people out there are trying, and failing, because of bad luck, lack or available resources, and lack of support. Yes, one can make it without encouragement. But if you do any real research into child development, you'll learn that children (and teenagers and adults, for that matter) are simply more successful when given opportunities, and encouraged to use them. There's a reason why private schools with all the nice equipment and a lower student/teacher ratio are so expensive. It's because, with all of those resources, and the constant encouragement to take all of those things and USE them to make something of themselves, it's just more likely that they will succeed.
I hope you figure it out before you show your children that you care more about them being "real geeks" (or whatever) than you do about how well they actually do in life.
First, I must apologize for the reception you've received to your question thus far. The ONE THING someone your age needs above all else is encouragement, which is something sorely lacking in most of the answers I've read. The fact that you stated your experience isn't bragging; you're trying to make it clear what direction you want to go in. I'm appalled at some of the things that have been said to someone who is actually going out and doing something with their life. (Jealousy that they did not, perhaps?) However... the silver lining is that such a response *will* help prepare you for the real world, which is unfortunately much like this at times. Don't let it discourage you; keep going anyway, and with just a little luck, you WILL succeed. Taking moronic insults and banter like this personally is pointless and a waste of time. File it away in the "This person is unreasonable and will waste my time" folder, and keep moving.
I can tell you from direct experience that there are MANY opportunities available to someone your age. I'm not familiar with the state of things in Texas, but everywhere I've tried (California, Florida, New York), there are always many people out there who see something of value in a kid with drive, and technical interest/ability. What I'm about to tell you about will work for getting you either a job or an internship (I've gotten many of both this way), though it may take a little tweaking based on your area and specific use. What it really boils down to is drive and determination, but some good planning beforehand can greatly reduce the amount of wasted time.
First, make a list of all of the different types of things you can think of that you might want to do, later in life. Obviously, you're going to want to make sure your internship matches your potential career(s), so this first step is important.
Next, come up with a list of ANY company in your area you can think of that might offer jobs in this same field. The fact that you're currently focussing on getting an internship instead of a job is irrelevant right now; a good internship requires the job that will support it to exist.
Now pull out a pencil, your computer, or whatever your favorite writing tool is and write yourself a script. Short, to the point, but cheerful and polite are the rules, here. "Hi, my name is Bob Smith, and I'm interested in interning/working for your company. May I speak with your hiring manager/HR department to discuss this?" Etc. Try it out on your parents, teachers, etc. Ask them to find ways to answer "No" and hang up on you, then eliminate those questions from your script. Remember that your script is just your plan, and that it will need to be flexible. You know, strategy vs. tactics. Testing it out on people will help show you which parts will likely progress normally, and which can go in any direction. Try to avoid questions that *can* be answered with a "No": "Hi, my name is Bob Smith, and I'm very interesting in interning in your department. I'd love to come in and chat with you about the possibility. I'm free this Thursday and Friday, anytime after 3:30 pm. When is best for you?" See? No way to say "No" without changing the conversation around.
Once you've got something that will allow you to get what you want without being too forceful, start calling up the companies on your list. It's fine to read from the script, though by now you'll probably have it memorized more than you'd ever want to anyway. Call, call, and call some more. If you get a nibble, don't go nuts and scare them off, but definitely show interest and drive. Remember, in their eyes, you're just an irresponsible kid. There's plenty of reasons NOT to hire you or take you on as an intern, so show them why they should. Don't be pushy, but show that you're not a flake, and that you have what it takes. If you get something good, congratulations! If not, don't give up. This WILL require many calls just to get the hang of it, and many more to be successful. Call the least
This is not to make it more difficult for spammers to receive e-mail. It is to make it more difficult for their messages to make it into our inboxes.
Challenge/Response systems stop spammers by requiring any mail sent to a particular address to be cleared through a whitelist of sorts. If the sender is not found in the whitelist, they are presented with a challenge. If they successfully answer the challenge, they are added to the whitelist and not challenged again; all other messages sent from this address will be allowed through.
For comment spam, it works in a similar fashion, though is often required for every post. However, this can also be avoided through the use of cookies, sessions, logins, or other recognition techniques.
The point is that the more difficult it is to pass through such measures with automated tools, AIs, scripts, bots or other devices, the less likely a spammer is to easily make money from their efforts. Of course, this would only put a serious dent in their income if adopted on a massive scale, but at the very least will have an impact on the number of spam messages that those who implement such measures will see.
I find the classification of these measures as "abusive" to be flawed at best, and misleading at worst. CAPTCHAS are a desperate response to an immoral group of people who will stop at nothing to make money with absolutely no regard for the problems, cost, and distress they cause their targets, who hide behind the first amendment when possible, or using illegal techniques when not. I hate having to deal with them myself, but I understand the necessity of their existence, however unpleasant, and will continue to deal with them as long as is necessary, as such.
Below are several problems mentioned with CAPTCHAs, as well as some possible solutions:
1] Accessibility
Problem: Blind/visually impaired users cannot reliably read the altered text.
Solution: Audio file accompanies every graphic, to be read on command. (However, still crackable with speech recognition.)
2] Referring test to 3rd parties
Problem: Spammers have other membership-based site users (i.e. porn sites) do the test.
Solution 1: Image is generated randomly, based on a user session, requiring an actual visit to your site; copying will be less effective unless the images are compared later... which may be quite some time if there are a large number of images and/or if the images are generated live on the server, rather than being stored files.
Solution 2: Include text imbedded in the image (and audio file) specifically referencing the site it is to be utilized with exclusively, requesting that the user report violations of duplication/unauthorized usage, and possibly offering a small reward for information leading to the arrest/conviction/judgment against the violator.
3] AI text processing
Problem: AI can be complex enough to identity letters, no matter how obfuscated, until such characters must be so distorted that even a human cannot decipher them.
Solution: Ask a logic question, present a photograph, or require another means of challenge/response than simple text recognition.
Example 1: Present a photograph of an apple or otherwise easily-spelled object, and ask the user to type the name into a field, or allow the user to select from a group of mildly distorted text, to avoid spelling issues. (However, this issue raises the accessibility issue again.)
Example 2: Present a short list of slightly distorted words (with audio files available for each word), and ask a short logic/history/other question. (One | Two | Three | Four | Orange - Of these words, one does not match. Please type the number of letters in this word, in numeric format. (Example: Apple = 5) This test is to be used exclusively by abc123.org. Please let us know if you see this elsewhere, as this means it was stolen.)
Until it is financially infeasible for a spammer to continue to do business, we will all be forced to deal with the messes they make. This is a challenge/response system, not an attempt to abuse the users of the internet. If there was a better way to solve this problem than hitting "delete" (which must happen hundreds if not thousands of times per day, for some of use), or using filters (which ALL give false positives, eventually), you can be sure that millions of semi-knowledgeable or better computer users would have chosen this path. To claim that such measures, which attempt to HELP people are abuse... perhaps you would like to re-evaluate your claim.