Dude, like, we don't need stashes around here. It's totally legal, and stuff. See? I've got my prescription card... What? Interstate commerce is affected, and therefore it's a federal jurisdiction?
2. In the screenshot here the 6,80 GHz has a comma instead of a period, in both the places it is displayed in the 'system properties' window.
3. There are no commas in the disk size on said page, and someone photoshopped again for commas instead of periods.
I don't mind a crappy photoshopped hoax, but at least they could be mildly EFFECTIVE about it. I mean, the something awful forum goons do ten times as well every week.
Freedom Force Pwnt. I haven't played the second one, but the first one was hilarious and had a pretty good (albeit not very hard or multiplayer-friendly) gameplay.
And as much as everyone hates SOE, I still love SWG.
Sony and Microsoft are fighting a war to dominate the living room, Nintendo is making great toys for adults and children. There's a marked difference between the two strategies. While more realism is a move towards the current market, I like to think that Nintendo is going to last while Sony and Microsoft are going to sputter out... Perhaps I'm just idealistic in thinking customers don't WANT the complete dominance of a single appliance M$ and Sony are aiming for.
Whether I forgive them or not doesn't really matter. Halo was a big deal when I was playing the original UT. Why would I bother forgiving them when they've probably moved on, gotten older, stopped doing new and interesting things. It's the nature of people and companies both to stop toeing the line as they age, and there wasn't that much I considered really that 'new' in Halo 2, but it made them piles upon piles of money....
I originally saw that video with the guy on the back of the truck gunnin' down foo's, and said, "Sweet." Halo was going to make a BUNDLE of money no matter what, and I was monumentally pissed when it came out on console months ahead of PC, driving all these FPS gamers to console, which was the entire point of the acquisition. I have since gotten mildly more mature.
If you want an RPG with a variety of interesting characters, I suggest an MMORPG. They change regularly, have personality of their own, are just as effective as your own character, etc. etc. etc. If you're a real role-player, I suggest you look into the older ones - I'd guess there's more role players in games that have lasted a long time.
But if you want a game that has put more into writing good "out of the box" characters and fleshing them out than the BG series, you're right. It probably doesn't exist. And probably won't for quite a while - as soon as a game becomes as easy to write as a novel, you will see games as complicated as novels. Unfortunately, there is a line between programming and art which has not quite been crossed yet. Wait ten to twenty years, and you may see it.
Amen to that. I'm one of the most efficient people I know due to 15-20 years of video game addiction. I can accomplish simple tasks other people take hours to do in a quarter the time, because I have always considered them 'menial' or 'trivial' in comparison to my next session....
Now, if only I could make a business as booming as my Star Wars Galaxies one, I would be a billionaire.....
Maybe it's just that I'm lacking direction, rather than lazy, invalidating my entire point. Yeah, whatever.
Actually, I hate middle management because they're generally not quite so good at what they do and I end up doing the same thing again and again and again because they can't figure out how to get me out of doing so.
I'd love to work for someone who didn't want to tell me what to do, because that would mean I wouldn't have to listen to his / her continual commentary about what s/he "knew" needed to be done to accomplish a task s/he wasn't really involved in beyond results.
It's possible to be an incredible programmer and get stuff done at 2-3x the speed of a bad one, this simply sounds like he's good at stacking the deck for his employees to get everything done properly.
And you have to review a big-name one not available on Linux and, and this is a kicker, MADE BY MICROSOFT?
Look, I have no grudge against Microsoft gaming studios. Except for buying Bungie, for which I will never forgive them. Regardless, it seems that for a community such as Slashdot, which is interested in things for nerds there would be a review of something obscure, interesting, and AMAZINGLY NEW in here. Not a review of a game I might have heard about were I surfing CompUsa's website, and CERTAINLY could have found easily through going to the supermarket.
I want to read a review about a game that makes tetris look like eye candy filled mushminded crap. I want a review about a game that makes Baldur's Gate's characters look shallow and uninteresting. (which they are, regardless) I want a review about a game that blows my mind, not a review about a cookie cutter POS rolled out of the M$ play-dough factory of software creation.
You can lie and slander your business competitors anonymously all you like. Proud American tradition. The Internet just leaves a bit more of a trail.
Responsibility - as you mention in a few cases - is quite important, but there is a definite difference between responsibility and oppression. Once communication is regulated in the way you seem to want to, this line will start creeping. I personally feel that some of the things already going on to limit anonymity of Internet communication are disturbing, and your mainstream argument of, "it's for your safety from the bad people who will hurt you," should not fly with people of intelligence.
You want responsibility? Allow people to prove themselves more intelligent and self-empowered than jerks who spam and lie and troll. Don't ask me to support a crutch for your corporation that needs protection from the possibility that these trolls might be believable and / or right.
There's very little benefit as well as very little consequence to me calling you an idiot, or saying you work as a corporate / government / religious drone attempting to bring 'grassroots' support to your own particular brand of fascism. I wouldn't particularly find it interesting to do it in the first place, but it has virtually 0 effect upon the real world. And the situation will continue to be that way for a while yet.
This is why I can say it all day. I'm not even that anonymous. But even if I were, I would deserve to be able to call you all these things if I believed them. And it would depend entirely upon the listener to believe or disbelieve me.
You want someone to pick on? A cause to go fight? Go push for more education, try to find a way to make our society more critically-thinking. I say the internet and TV might even eventually do that for us, despite how inane it all is.
The computer industry could use an infinite number of women with wavy blonde hair, pink polo shirts, and a good education, as far as I'm concerned.
Re:OT: What's with these forms?
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
This is a standard Slashdot reply to the continuous 'I have solved the spam problem' stories people were suggesting. There seems to be only so much flex in solving the problem, and the survey checklist is a result of people going around in circles attempting to fix this problem. I personally think that the 'trusted social networking' stuff is more likely to fix the problem than anything else. But that is an end-user and third-party system, not a centralized system. There is a big difference between the two.
You Personally advocate a (x) technical (x) legislative (x) market-based You need all three of these to make a system like this work. (x) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses - Along with a centralized repository for management comes a centralized directory.
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected - Current e-mail systems would all have to be scrapped.
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money - Finding a spammer would be the same as finding a telemarketer, only there would be five hops through anonymous and cleaning servers. Bad things, man.
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it - Like any computer system, there will be bugs and holes. A centralized authentication system is not a cure-all. Ergo, the holes would be exploited within two weeks and the system comprimised. We would then be stuck with the WORST of all worlds.
(x) Users of email will not put up with it -- All my old e-mail systems would have to be rebuilt. Small businesses, everyone suddenly has to comply. Great deal.
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers --you have to assume some guy protected by the mob in Russia doesn't decide he can make millions sending Americans spam despite the fact that the US government won't get their hands on him until after he has cash in pocket.
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once -- Sudden switch from one format to another anyone?
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers Yeah, if you phase it instead, you're running into this problem. -- (x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists -- Meh, you're right, this one doesn't apply at all.
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business -- This morning I heard a radio story about an eleven year old boy being disallowed from boarding a plane due to being a terr'ist. E-mail would be little different.
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(x) Open relays in foreign countries - I think this one's a no-brainer.
(x) Asshats - Again, No Brainer.
(x) Jurisdictional problems -Again, No Brainer.
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes -- Suddenly, there would be an e-mail tax if someone had to maintain the list. Something like domain registration.
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP -- No Brainer.
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack -- Something you forgot.
(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email -- Suddenly, your trusted e-mail name is sending spam off. You call THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT to get access back, and then you wait the two or three weeks it takes to actually fix, as well as paying a massive sum to some guy that doesn't want to deal with your crap anyways, and there's no guarantee you'll not do it again in a month.
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes -- Would remove themselves from the network quickly, suddenly making massive numbers of people angry.
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches -- No Brainer.
(x) Extreme profitability of spam -- No Brainer.
(x) Technically illiterate politicians -- *shudder* You want Kofi Anan, George Bush or John Kerry in charge of whether you have access to e-mail? This is just plain SCARY.
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers -- No Brainer.
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft -- No Brainer.
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo -- No Brainer.
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves -- No Brainer.
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical --No Brainer.
(x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable --No B
Glancing at your sig, I'm surprised you've missed this classic Corleone quote:
"One lawyer with his briefcase can steal more money than ten thousand men with guns."
Re:Email is mostly broken
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You asked for it, Here It Is. You have officially scored the lowest I have ever personally seen, and I had to actually ADD negative things to the checklist just for you.
Yes, it's a possibility. Unfortunately, in this case the 'dolts who invariably reply with the survey' are actually right. The survey is funny, but it serves a very important purpose in this case - it shows that completely re-engineering the entire e-mail system means that the problems we have are masked temporarily and then reemerge. Identity, no identity, in the end the 'stopgaps' are actually better than the 'build it from the ground up' solution.
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.)
(x) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers (x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (N/A) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (x) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP (x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack (x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (x) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (x) Technically illiterate politicians (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical (x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable (x) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation (x) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored (x) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? (x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome (x) 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. (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a fascist for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
It is totally a problem unique to Open Source. We're all perfectly informed as to:
How empowering IBM's Software is.
How much we can get done using Microsoft software.
How well Oracle scales
And all thanks to their advertising. I mean, it's as if we already know EVERYTHING without even having to do any silly reading. When was the last time you had to actually install Microsoft software to know how good it was?
Interesting / amusing, however, that M$ uses 11 year old pictures for its maps. At least if it's a conspiracy they're a full decade behind on their grand master plan.
MY question is why you would want to code something like this in the first place. It's a great idea on one level and on the second...... Yeah, I want nineteen windows of spam spawning when I accidentally click on a link. Really I do. But I know I would get them eventually if I installed something like this. So why make it standard? Why even try? If you can't explain what you're linking to, then perhaps it's not the technology that's the problem, and rather the author of whatever needs to be linked to four or five or five thousand different things.
ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY
(Google's equivalent of Developers Developers Developers)
This is a solution on the liberal arts side rather than the tech side. Write up a list of links and explain each one if you think there's that much info out there required. Don't make ME pick something that doesn't suck from a bunch of unlabeled href's.
All these threads forget: 18 - rent a moving van, possibly the hardest and most worthless POS vehicle to drive on the road
and 23 - Rent a vehicle from Hertz
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, like, we don't need stashes around here. It's totally legal, and stuff. See? I've got my prescription card... What? Interstate commerce is affected, and therefore it's a federal jurisdiction?
Totally ruinin' my buzz.
1. I don't see them in the page you have linked.
2. In the screenshot here the 6,80 GHz has a comma instead of a period, in both the places it is displayed in the 'system properties' window.
3. There are no commas in the disk size on said page, and someone photoshopped again for commas instead of periods.
I don't mind a crappy photoshopped hoax, but at least they could be mildly EFFECTIVE about it. I mean, the something awful forum goons do ten times as well every week.
Freedom Force Pwnt. I haven't played the second one, but the first one was hilarious and had a pretty good (albeit not very hard or multiplayer-friendly) gameplay.
And as much as everyone hates SOE, I still love SWG.
Sony and Microsoft are fighting a war to dominate the living room, Nintendo is making great toys for adults and children. There's a marked difference between the two strategies. While more realism is a move towards the current market, I like to think that Nintendo is going to last while Sony and Microsoft are going to sputter out... Perhaps I'm just idealistic in thinking customers don't WANT the complete dominance of a single appliance M$ and Sony are aiming for.
Whether I forgive them or not doesn't really matter. Halo was a big deal when I was playing the original UT. Why would I bother forgiving them when they've probably moved on, gotten older, stopped doing new and interesting things. It's the nature of people and companies both to stop toeing the line as they age, and there wasn't that much I considered really that 'new' in Halo 2, but it made them piles upon piles of money.... I originally saw that video with the guy on the back of the truck gunnin' down foo's, and said, "Sweet." Halo was going to make a BUNDLE of money no matter what, and I was monumentally pissed when it came out on console months ahead of PC, driving all these FPS gamers to console, which was the entire point of the acquisition. I have since gotten mildly more mature.
If you want an RPG with a variety of interesting characters, I suggest an MMORPG. They change regularly, have personality of their own, are just as effective as your own character, etc. etc. etc. If you're a real role-player, I suggest you look into the older ones - I'd guess there's more role players in games that have lasted a long time.
But if you want a game that has put more into writing good "out of the box" characters and fleshing them out than the BG series, you're right. It probably doesn't exist. And probably won't for quite a while - as soon as a game becomes as easy to write as a novel, you will see games as complicated as novels. Unfortunately, there is a line between programming and art which has not quite been crossed yet. Wait ten to twenty years, and you may see it.
Amen to that. I'm one of the most efficient people I know due to 15-20 years of video game addiction. I can accomplish simple tasks other people take hours to do in a quarter the time, because I have always considered them 'menial' or 'trivial' in comparison to my next session....
Now, if only I could make a business as booming as my Star Wars Galaxies one, I would be a billionaire.....
Maybe it's just that I'm lacking direction, rather than lazy, invalidating my entire point. Yeah, whatever.
Actually, I hate middle management because they're generally not quite so good at what they do and I end up doing the same thing again and again and again because they can't figure out how to get me out of doing so.
I'd love to work for someone who didn't want to tell me what to do, because that would mean I wouldn't have to listen to his / her continual commentary about what s/he "knew" needed to be done to accomplish a task s/he wasn't really involved in beyond results.
It's possible to be an incredible programmer and get stuff done at 2-3x the speed of a bad one, this simply sounds like he's good at stacking the deck for his employees to get everything done properly.
In the world of public corporations, it's practically illegal to value your employees above the almighty bottom line.
This is the most insightful thing I've read on Slashdot I've read all week, it made me think, and I wish I had mod points.
And you have to review a big-name one not available on Linux and, and this is a kicker, MADE BY MICROSOFT?
Look, I have no grudge against Microsoft gaming studios. Except for buying Bungie, for which I will never forgive them. Regardless, it seems that for a community such as Slashdot, which is interested in things for nerds there would be a review of something obscure, interesting, and AMAZINGLY NEW in here. Not a review of a game I might have heard about were I surfing CompUsa's website, and CERTAINLY could have found easily through going to the supermarket.
I want to read a review about a game that makes tetris look like eye candy filled mushminded crap. I want a review about a game that makes Baldur's Gate's characters look shallow and uninteresting. (which they are, regardless) I want a review about a game that blows my mind, not a review about a cookie cutter POS rolled out of the M$ play-dough factory of software creation.
That has got to be the funniest link I've encountered in months. Totally sending it as humor to all my friends.
You can lie and slander your business competitors anonymously all you like. Proud American tradition. The Internet just leaves a bit more of a trail.
Responsibility - as you mention in a few cases - is quite important, but there is a definite difference between responsibility and oppression. Once communication is regulated in the way you seem to want to, this line will start creeping. I personally feel that some of the things already going on to limit anonymity of Internet communication are disturbing, and your mainstream argument of, "it's for your safety from the bad people who will hurt you," should not fly with people of intelligence.
You want responsibility? Allow people to prove themselves more intelligent and self-empowered than jerks who spam and lie and troll. Don't ask me to support a crutch for your corporation that needs protection from the possibility that these trolls might be believable and / or right.
There's very little benefit as well as very little consequence to me calling you an idiot, or saying you work as a corporate / government / religious drone attempting to bring 'grassroots' support to your own particular brand of fascism. I wouldn't particularly find it interesting to do it in the first place, but it has virtually 0 effect upon the real world. And the situation will continue to be that way for a while yet.
This is why I can say it all day. I'm not even that anonymous. But even if I were, I would deserve to be able to call you all these things if I believed them. And it would depend entirely upon the listener to believe or disbelieve me.
You want someone to pick on? A cause to go fight? Go push for more education, try to find a way to make our society more critically-thinking. I say the internet and TV might even eventually do that for us, despite how inane it all is.
The computer industry could use an infinite number of women with wavy blonde hair, pink polo shirts, and a good education, as far as I'm concerned.
This is a standard Slashdot reply to the continuous 'I have solved the spam problem' stories people were suggesting. There seems to be only so much flex in solving the problem, and the survey checklist is a result of people going around in circles attempting to fix this problem. I personally think that the 'trusted social networking' stuff is more likely to fix the problem than anything else. But that is an end-user and third-party system, not a centralized system. There is a big difference between the two.
You Personally advocate a
(x) technical (x) legislative (x) market-based
You need all three of these to make a system like this work.
(x) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses - Along with a centralized repository for management comes a centralized directory.
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected - Current e-mail systems would all have to be scrapped.
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money - Finding a spammer would be the same as finding a telemarketer, only there would be five hops through anonymous and cleaning servers. Bad things, man.
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it - Like any computer system, there will be bugs and holes. A centralized authentication system is not a cure-all. Ergo, the holes would be exploited within two weeks and the system comprimised. We would then be stuck with the WORST of all worlds.
(x) Users of email will not put up with it --
All my old e-mail systems would have to be rebuilt. Small businesses, everyone suddenly has to comply. Great deal.
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers --you have to assume some guy protected by the mob in Russia doesn't decide he can make millions sending Americans spam despite the fact that the US government won't get their hands on him until after he has cash in pocket.
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once -- Sudden switch from one format to another anyone?
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Yeah, if you phase it instead, you're running into this problem. --
(x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists -- Meh, you're right, this one doesn't apply at all.
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business -- This morning I heard a radio story about an eleven year old boy being disallowed from boarding a plane due to being a terr'ist. E-mail would be little different.
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(x) Open relays in foreign countries - I think this one's a no-brainer.
(x) Asshats - Again, No Brainer.
(x) Jurisdictional problems -Again, No Brainer.
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes -- Suddenly, there would be an e-mail tax if someone had to maintain the list. Something like domain registration.
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP -- No Brainer.
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack -- Something you forgot.
(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email -- Suddenly, your trusted e-mail name is sending spam off. You call THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT to get access back, and then you wait the two or three weeks it takes to actually fix, as well as paying a massive sum to some guy that doesn't want to deal with your crap anyways, and there's no guarantee you'll not do it again in a month.
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes -- Would remove themselves from the network quickly, suddenly making massive numbers of people angry.
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches -- No Brainer.
(x) Extreme profitability of spam -- No Brainer.
(x) Technically illiterate politicians -- *shudder* You want Kofi Anan, George Bush or John Kerry in charge of whether you have access to e-mail? This is just plain SCARY.
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers -- No Brainer.
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft -- No Brainer.
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo -- No Brainer.
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves -- No Brainer.
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical --No Brainer.
(x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable --No B
Glancing at your sig, I'm surprised you've missed this classic Corleone quote:
"One lawyer with his briefcase can steal more money than ten thousand men with guns."
You asked for it, Here It Is. You have officially scored the lowest I have ever personally seen, and I had to actually ADD negative things to the checklist just for you.
Yes, it's a possibility. Unfortunately, in this case the 'dolts who invariably reply with the survey' are actually right. The survey is funny, but it serves a very important purpose in this case - it shows that completely re-engineering the entire e-mail system means that the problems we have are masked temporarily and then reemerge. Identity, no identity, in the end the 'stopgaps' are actually better than the 'build it from the ground up' solution.
You Personally advocate a
(x) technical (x) legislative (x) 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.)
(x) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
(x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(N/A) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(x) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(x) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(x) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(x) 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.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a fascist for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Agreed.
Second problem is that this might open up a whole host of client-side vulnerabilities that suck. Really, Really, Really bad.
Not to mention that I would definitely moderate the entire summary as flamebait. Come the heck on, at least give objectivity a shot.
It is totally a problem unique to Open Source. We're all perfectly informed as to:
How empowering IBM's Software is.
How much we can get done using Microsoft software.
How well Oracle scales
And all thanks to their advertising. I mean, it's as if we already know EVERYTHING without even having to do any silly reading. When was the last time you had to actually install Microsoft software to know how good it was?
Thank goodness for TV.
Interesting / amusing, however, that M$ uses 11 year old pictures for its maps. At least if it's a conspiracy they're a full decade behind on their grand master plan.
CAD meaning Canadian? Remember, laws make SLIGHTLY more sense in Canada.
That subscriber bonus 15 mins somehow didn't work. So Dupe and BUG both at the same time. My Beastie Boys background music agrees with me.
MY question is why you would want to code something like this in the first place. It's a great idea on one level and on the second...... Yeah, I want nineteen windows of spam spawning when I accidentally click on a link. Really I do. But I know I would get them eventually if I installed something like this. So why make it standard? Why even try? If you can't explain what you're linking to, then perhaps it's not the technology that's the problem, and rather the author of whatever needs to be linked to four or five or five thousand different things.
ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY
(Google's equivalent of Developers Developers Developers)
This is a solution on the liberal arts side rather than the tech side. Write up a list of links and explain each one if you think there's that much info out there required. Don't make ME pick something that doesn't suck from a bunch of unlabeled href's.
All these threads forget:
18 - rent a moving van, possibly the hardest and most worthless POS vehicle to drive on the road
and
23 - Rent a vehicle from Hertz