A better questions is "How does creating a read only email system help Microsoft?"
Of course, it doesn't, so they won't do it. It is simpler to just turn off WebDAV (rather than make it read only); it is easier to manage (how many support calls would they get because could not reply to their email). Turning off WebDAV is the easy solution to turning off sending.
Allowing people to read their email in a program and then not allow them to *reply* to or forward email in the same program is a recipe for support contacts disaster.
As posted elsewhere, the concern is that someone will use the Outlook API to manage *multiple* accounts. Since each account can send a 100 messages times the number of allowable recipients (100 is required at the receiving end; not sure of HotMail's sending rules), this allows a thousand or ten thousand messages to be sent from *each* account. If they made ten thousand acccounts, then that's a hundred million recipients.
One can still do this through the web interface, but then you need to manually upload the addresses and send the messages. With the Outlook API, you only need to manually sign up for the accounts. The rest can be automated.
If you got a $50 fine tomorrow, you would still get up the next day. That's not the issue.
If there were a large number of people who were just as qualified to do the job, then they wouldn't be making > $150,000 a year. If Garner really loves acting, she might skip out on television and movies and go to the stage. More prestige (less money, but as we already discussed, money wouldn't be an issue).
Microsoft isn't going to spend more on QA. It's not like they are budget limited now. If they wanted to spend the money, they could.
If Bill got paid less, he would be buying less. Further, there would be a strong incentive in that kind of case for him to get more in perks: business lunches, company housing, etc. Normal workers don't have the same ability. Or he might feed his ego by buying his way into more businesses. Why not buy NBC? Then he could pick his own favorite shows. Microsoft could afford it, especially if you get rid of all salaries above $150,000. It wouldn't make much business sense, but if Gates is limited to $150,000 a year, what does he care if Microsoft doesn't do so well.
Intentions? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Giving up 20% of tax revenues without any incentive to increase production (the incentive actually goes the other way) is stupid, regardless of intention.
The problem with employing the really brutal tactics is that they linger and and spread. Look at Northern Ireland. That resistance has been going on for hundreds of years. Further, when you kill the relatives of a terrorist, you are probably killing the relatives of many *non-terrorists* as well. This has a tendency to make terrorists (or at least sympathizers) out of those who previously weren't terrorists.
Look at how the Soviet empire crumbled as soon as they withdrew their troops. While they had successfully suppressed conflicts in places like Czechoslovakia, the same conflicts popped up again as soon as they left.
The final problem with such brutal tactics is that it makes enemies of current supporters. Some Iraqis are glad that the US got rid of Saddam; however, these people would not be nearly as friendly if we started engaging in the same behavior for which they condemned Saddam.
Yes, it is a war and people die in war. However, the purported justification for this war was to prevent suffering. Overall, the war seems to have failed both in this public aim and in the less publicized aim of stabilizing oil prices (oil was cheaper before and even *during* the worst of the war than it is now). Now if you want to argue that it is impossible to reduce suffering by going to war, I would agree with you. Thus, we shouldn't have gone to war.
"A genetic defect that prevents reproduction is severe"
All the more reason to breed it out of the population by encouraging homosexuals not to reproduce. The best way to do that is to stop encouraging homosexuals to pretend to be heterosexual. Thus, same sex marriages should be a good thing from the point of a homophobe. Unfortunately, most homophobes aren't that rational.
Of course, if it is a same sex relationship between two women, this becomes more difficult, as women can become pregnant via artificial insemination. However, they don't need to be married to do this, so gay marriage neither helps nor hurts reproduction of gay women.
Overall, the average homophobe's opposition to gay marriage is counterproductive of their own position. Personally, I find that funny.
You're missing the point. They have two choices under the current system:
1. Work 40 hours a week and make $150K.
2. Work 80 hours a week and make $300K.
Under this system, there would only be one choice: make $150K. Presumably those people would only work 40 hours a week from then on. We would thus lose the extra work from these people. Further, since income over $150K counts for something like 15% of federal taxes, this would cause a huge drop in tax revenues.
Another example: I happened to read on IMDB that Jennifer Garner was paid $3 million to make 13 Going on 30 and is paid $150K an episode to be on Alias. Given that, why wouldn't she take her payment for the movie over the course of twenty years and give up the TV show entirely? Would she be poverty stricken as a result? No, but I still wouldn't be able to watch Alias anymore. Thus, that tax would hurt me, even though I am not close to having to pay it myself.
You are both wrong. A male who believes that females are inherently less is a sexist, not a chauvinist or a racist. The other poster's use of chauvinist (while wrong) to mean sexist is at least something that I have seen previously. In fact, it is much the use given by the second definition in the link that you post. To be correct though, that should be a male chauvinist (one could also have a female chauvinist or a black chauvinist).
Calling sexism racism is just bizarre and may well be unique to you personally.
You're missing the point. Yes, proportional voting would be better for the country. The problem is that it wouldn't be better for the *state*. Since the state is the one that picks the electoral college distribution, it makes sense for the state to do so in such a way that maximizes their influence.
That said, the grandparent is incorrect. Currently, there are twenty battleground states that get all the focus (and presidential pork). The other thirty states (including California) are being taken for granted. Thus, it would help California if they used some kind of proportional voting. In that case, they would still be of interest and would be drawing presidential campaigning, whereas they are not now.
"Do you really think nuke plants could get built without government subsidy?"
Do you really think *power* plants of whatever type can be built without government subsidy? Certainly not in the current system.
Coal power plants produce more radioactive waste than do nuclear (fission) power plants for the same production of power. If that is your only criteria in evaluating two power sources, nuclear is clearly better. If nuclear power needs to be responsible for the damage it can cause, then so does coal (and other forms of) power.
I would be perfectly happy with a level playing field. The current system is not.
"And think about it, how could the war really be about slavery when lincoln owned slaves?"
No, he didn't. Lincoln was an actual abolitionist. He just wasn't ready to break the country over slavery: http://www.nps.gov/libo/thoughts_on_slavery3.htm for more info. The Republican party was the party of abolitionists. The radicals (who would later assassinate Lincoln) were in favor of freeing the slaves immediately. More moderate Republicans (like Lincoln) were not.
There were definitely other issues in the Civil War (and it is certainly reasonable to say that they were more important), but one was in fact that the South was scared that the Republicans were going to free the slaves. Of course, if it weren't for the Civil War, it is pretty definite that Lincoln would not have done so in his first term.
The libertarians have traditionally run candidates in as many elections as possible. Someone posted the example of a Libertarian sheriff (which is either a municipal or county position). The Free State Project has a bunch of people of Libertarian and similar views moving to New Hampshire to establish their own community where they will be able to win local races.
As someone else pointed out, the reason to run a presidential candidate is that one gains both ballot access and public money by doing so.
With both Nader and Perot, exit polls indicated that those who voted for them would have voted about equally for each party if limited to just the two majors. While it is intuitive that Nader voters would have favored Gore, it is not true.
"He's already demonstrated the will to do something he knew would be (or hoped would be, which is more or less the same thing) extremely destructive."
It was posted elsewhere that his intent was to inoculate computers against other viruses and clean out spamming zombies. His *intent* was to be a white hat. This doesn't make what he did any less illegal, but he shouldn't be painted with the same brush as the vandals and thieves who he was trying to combat. He wasn't trying to make the computers not work. He wasn't trying to hijack the computer resources to make money. He did not know or hope that his virus would do damage to the computer users. He wanted to combat those who did intend vandalism or theft.
A better argument against his hire is that he messed it up pretty badly.
A geek was the person in a carnival who performed acts like biting the head off a live chicken (I guess that makes Ozzy Ozbourne and the contestants on Fear Factor modern geeks). Use of the word by techies to refer to techies is probably more like the way blacks sometimes use the word "nigger" to refer to themselves. A term intended to be derogatory by the original speakers that they made their own. I'm not as clear on the etymology of nerd, but http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nerd again suggests that the negative connotation came first.
"You went to the web page of your own free will, using something known to be bad. Caveat Emptor."
Obviously people here are aware that the site is bad. However, people who actually get the link in an email would be under the impression that the site is an opt out link. Providing them a virus instead is fraud and illegal.
If "known to be bad" refers to IE, that doesn't excuse anything. That's like saying that if you forget to lock your door, then it's all right for people to steal your stuff. In reality, it's still just as illegal.
"3. If you are interested in the product, do not contact the email (spam) source, reply to the email, click on "helpful" buttons. Find reputable mainstream vendors - if it's great then Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. will stock it."
If you are interested, buy from a competitor. Note that under your system, it still makes sense for a manufacturer (e.g. the makers of Cialis, Levitra, or herbal substitutes) to support spam (either directly or through dealer incentives). E.g. if someone spams you to buy Levitra, buy some Viagra instead.
"This is not exactly true. If you can manage to get fewer eyeballs viewing the spam, you should get fewer people responding to spam. This is removing the economic incentive while keeping the costs the same. In other words it becomes less profitable."
I was listening to one of the local idiots on the radio. He was talking about a recent state government decision to allow more doe hunting to cut down the deer population. His take was that it would make more sense to kill buck than doe, after all a single buck can cover (impregnate) ten doe during a season. Therefore, by his logic, killing one buck would reduce the number of fawns born by 10. However, it doesn't work that way. Coming out of the womb, there is roughly one buck per doe. Thus, to have *any* effect on the deer population by killing buck, one would have to kill 90% of the buck. Until you do that, killing buck has no effect, because you start with a massive surplus of buck.
Spam is the same way. The products are so high margin that even if it takes ten times the effort to send one message, they will still send messages. You have to remember, most *legitimate* forms of advertising expect to be seen by far more people who do not buy than who do. Of course, this applies to stalling tactics as well. The main effect of these is to *increase* the spammer's efforts. In many cases, this now involves virus infected zombies sending email. Thus, the main effect of these is to make spammers try harder to infect more machines.
jack london detective -barleycorn -"by -jack -london"
on Google and got http://www.idiotsguides.com/static/html/us/newslet ters/signet.html as the 10th result.
Note: London didn't write detective novels. He appears as a *character* in novels written by Peter King. Still didn't help BrainBoost. When I tried "Who wrote the books in which jack london appears as a detective?" I didn't get any results.
One of the novels *is* in the link I found on Google. Searching for jack london peter king finds more links.
"Last yearm who would have believed you if you said that Google would offer e-mail? Not many people"
In what world are you living? GMail was an obvious expansion of their market given Yahoo's move into search. It made perfect sense the first time that I heard it.
"The next thing to realise is that in the Libertarian financial world (as I understand it), the rampant inflation that effectively forces you to invest or lose purchasing power wouldn't exist"
Actually, Badnarik's position is that the Fed's monopoly on printing money would cease. This would *increase* inflation (inflation is caused by the effective money supply increasing faster than production), not decrease it. Further, inflation is not the only reason one needs a 401k. In general, a 401k should be able to outperform inflation by about 10%. This causes the 401k to double in value every seven years. Thus, the 401k allows one to increase the effectiveness of one's savings far beyond their original value.
Investing in small numbers of companies is stupid. A large part of successful investing is spreading the risks over multiple companies. For example, peanut butter sells well during recessions. Luxuries do not. Therefore, one should invest in companies that sell each kind of product so as to be prepared for both situations.
Finally, the idea that *anyone* can successfully understand *all* the projects that even *one* company undertakes is ridiculous. Enron, et.al. had a full accounting agency auditing their books and they got away with cooking them for several years. Thousands of employees lost their pensions because they were fully invested in their own companies. Who better to perceive problems than an employee of the company?
Slashdot Mirror
A better questions is "How does creating a read only email system help Microsoft?"
Of course, it doesn't, so they won't do it. It is simpler to just turn off WebDAV (rather than make it read only); it is easier to manage (how many support calls would they get because could not reply to their email). Turning off WebDAV is the easy solution to turning off sending.
Allowing people to read their email in a program and then not allow them to *reply* to or forward email in the same program is a recipe for support contacts disaster.
As posted elsewhere, the concern is that someone will use the Outlook API to manage *multiple* accounts. Since each account can send a 100 messages times the number of allowable recipients (100 is required at the receiving end; not sure of HotMail's sending rules), this allows a thousand or ten thousand messages to be sent from *each* account. If they made ten thousand acccounts, then that's a hundred million recipients.
One can still do this through the web interface, but then you need to manually upload the addresses and send the messages. With the Outlook API, you only need to manually sign up for the accounts. The rest can be automated.
If you got a $50 fine tomorrow, you would still get up the next day. That's not the issue.
If there were a large number of people who were just as qualified to do the job, then they wouldn't be making > $150,000 a year. If Garner really loves acting, she might skip out on television and movies and go to the stage. More prestige (less money, but as we already discussed, money wouldn't be an issue).
Microsoft isn't going to spend more on QA. It's not like they are budget limited now. If they wanted to spend the money, they could.
If Bill got paid less, he would be buying less. Further, there would be a strong incentive in that kind of case for him to get more in perks: business lunches, company housing, etc. Normal workers don't have the same ability. Or he might feed his ego by buying his way into more businesses. Why not buy NBC? Then he could pick his own favorite shows. Microsoft could afford it, especially if you get rid of all salaries above $150,000. It wouldn't make much business sense, but if Gates is limited to $150,000 a year, what does he care if Microsoft doesn't do so well.
Intentions? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Giving up 20% of tax revenues without any incentive to increase production (the incentive actually goes the other way) is stupid, regardless of intention.
The problem with employing the really brutal tactics is that they linger and and spread. Look at Northern Ireland. That resistance has been going on for hundreds of years. Further, when you kill the relatives of a terrorist, you are probably killing the relatives of many *non-terrorists* as well. This has a tendency to make terrorists (or at least sympathizers) out of those who previously weren't terrorists.
Look at how the Soviet empire crumbled as soon as they withdrew their troops. While they had successfully suppressed conflicts in places like Czechoslovakia, the same conflicts popped up again as soon as they left.
The final problem with such brutal tactics is that it makes enemies of current supporters. Some Iraqis are glad that the US got rid of Saddam; however, these people would not be nearly as friendly if we started engaging in the same behavior for which they condemned Saddam.
Yes, it is a war and people die in war. However, the purported justification for this war was to prevent suffering. Overall, the war seems to have failed both in this public aim and in the less publicized aim of stabilizing oil prices (oil was cheaper before and even *during* the worst of the war than it is now). Now if you want to argue that it is impossible to reduce suffering by going to war, I would agree with you. Thus, we shouldn't have gone to war.
"A genetic defect that prevents reproduction is severe"
All the more reason to breed it out of the population by encouraging homosexuals not to reproduce. The best way to do that is to stop encouraging homosexuals to pretend to be heterosexual. Thus, same sex marriages should be a good thing from the point of a homophobe. Unfortunately, most homophobes aren't that rational.
Of course, if it is a same sex relationship between two women, this becomes more difficult, as women can become pregnant via artificial insemination. However, they don't need to be married to do this, so gay marriage neither helps nor hurts reproduction of gay women.
Overall, the average homophobe's opposition to gay marriage is counterproductive of their own position. Personally, I find that funny.
You're missing the point. They have two choices under the current system:
1. Work 40 hours a week and make $150K.
2. Work 80 hours a week and make $300K.
Under this system, there would only be one choice: make $150K. Presumably those people would only work 40 hours a week from then on. We would thus lose the extra work from these people. Further, since income over $150K counts for something like 15% of federal taxes, this would cause a huge drop in tax revenues.
Another example: I happened to read on IMDB that Jennifer Garner was paid $3 million to make 13 Going on 30 and is paid $150K an episode to be on Alias. Given that, why wouldn't she take her payment for the movie over the course of twenty years and give up the TV show entirely? Would she be poverty stricken as a result? No, but I still wouldn't be able to watch Alias anymore. Thus, that tax would hurt me, even though I am not close to having to pay it myself.
You are both wrong. A male who believes that females are inherently less is a sexist, not a chauvinist or a racist. The other poster's use of chauvinist (while wrong) to mean sexist is at least something that I have seen previously. In fact, it is much the use given by the second definition in the link that you post. To be correct though, that should be a male chauvinist (one could also have a female chauvinist or a black chauvinist).
Calling sexism racism is just bizarre and may well be unique to you personally.
You're missing the point. Yes, proportional voting would be better for the country. The problem is that it wouldn't be better for the *state*. Since the state is the one that picks the electoral college distribution, it makes sense for the state to do so in such a way that maximizes their influence.
That said, the grandparent is incorrect. Currently, there are twenty battleground states that get all the focus (and presidential pork). The other thirty states (including California) are being taken for granted. Thus, it would help California if they used some kind of proportional voting. In that case, they would still be of interest and would be drawing presidential campaigning, whereas they are not now.
"Do you really think nuke plants could get built without government subsidy?"
Do you really think *power* plants of whatever type can be built without government subsidy? Certainly not in the current system.
Coal power plants produce more radioactive waste than do nuclear (fission) power plants for the same production of power. If that is your only criteria in evaluating two power sources, nuclear is clearly better. If nuclear power needs to be responsible for the damage it can cause, then so does coal (and other forms of) power.
I would be perfectly happy with a level playing field. The current system is not.
"And think about it, how could the war really be about slavery when lincoln owned slaves?"
No, he didn't. Lincoln was an actual abolitionist. He just wasn't ready to break the country over slavery: http://www.nps.gov/libo/thoughts_on_slavery3.htm for more info. The Republican party was the party of abolitionists. The radicals (who would later assassinate Lincoln) were in favor of freeing the slaves immediately. More moderate Republicans (like Lincoln) were not.
There were definitely other issues in the Civil War (and it is certainly reasonable to say that they were more important), but one was in fact that the South was scared that the Republicans were going to free the slaves. Of course, if it weren't for the Civil War, it is pretty definite that Lincoln would not have done so in his first term.
The libertarians have traditionally run candidates in as many elections as possible. Someone posted the example of a Libertarian sheriff (which is either a municipal or county position). The Free State Project has a bunch of people of Libertarian and similar views moving to New Hampshire to establish their own community where they will be able to win local races.
As someone else pointed out, the reason to run a presidential candidate is that one gains both ballot access and public money by doing so.
For those who were hoping that the first link would explain what instant runoff voting was, here.
With both Nader and Perot, exit polls indicated that those who voted for them would have voted about equally for each party if limited to just the two majors. While it is intuitive that Nader voters would have favored Gore, it is not true.
"He's already demonstrated the will to do something he knew would be (or hoped would be, which is more or less the same thing) extremely destructive."
It was posted elsewhere that his intent was to inoculate computers against other viruses and clean out spamming zombies. His *intent* was to be a white hat. This doesn't make what he did any less illegal, but he shouldn't be painted with the same brush as the vandals and thieves who he was trying to combat. He wasn't trying to make the computers not work. He wasn't trying to hijack the computer resources to make money. He did not know or hope that his virus would do damage to the computer users. He wanted to combat those who did intend vandalism or theft.
A better argument against his hire is that he messed it up pretty badly.
A geek was the person in a carnival who performed acts like biting the head off a live chicken (I guess that makes Ozzy Ozbourne and the contestants on Fear Factor modern geeks). Use of the word by techies to refer to techies is probably more like the way blacks sometimes use the word "nigger" to refer to themselves. A term intended to be derogatory by the original speakers that they made their own. I'm not as clear on the etymology of nerd, but http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nerd again suggests that the negative connotation came first.
Access uses a stripped down version of MS SQL Server now instead of its own Jet DB engine.
http://www.xcelent.biz/d/ is a link to another page in that domain. Also has more graphics for better slashdotting potential.
P.S. Still be careful. They could always move the pages around."You went to the web page of your own free will, using something known to be bad. Caveat Emptor."
Obviously people here are aware that the site is bad. However, people who actually get the link in an email would be under the impression that the site is an opt out link. Providing them a virus instead is fraud and illegal.
If "known to be bad" refers to IE, that doesn't excuse anything. That's like saying that if you forget to lock your door, then it's all right for people to steal your stuff. In reality, it's still just as illegal.
"3. If you are interested in the product, do not contact the email (spam) source, reply to the email, click on "helpful" buttons. Find reputable mainstream vendors - if it's great then Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. will stock it."
If you are interested, buy from a competitor. Note that under your system, it still makes sense for a manufacturer (e.g. the makers of Cialis, Levitra, or herbal substitutes) to support spam (either directly or through dealer incentives). E.g. if someone spams you to buy Levitra, buy some Viagra instead.
"This is not exactly true. If you can manage to get fewer eyeballs viewing the spam, you should get fewer people responding to spam. This is removing the economic incentive while keeping the costs the same. In other words it becomes less profitable."
I was listening to one of the local idiots on the radio. He was talking about a recent state government decision to allow more doe hunting to cut down the deer population. His take was that it would make more sense to kill buck than doe, after all a single buck can cover (impregnate) ten doe during a season. Therefore, by his logic, killing one buck would reduce the number of fawns born by 10. However, it doesn't work that way. Coming out of the womb, there is roughly one buck per doe. Thus, to have *any* effect on the deer population by killing buck, one would have to kill 90% of the buck. Until you do that, killing buck has no effect, because you start with a massive surplus of buck.
Spam is the same way. The products are so high margin that even if it takes ten times the effort to send one message, they will still send messages. You have to remember, most *legitimate* forms of advertising expect to be seen by far more people who do not buy than who do. Of course, this applies to stalling tactics as well. The main effect of these is to *increase* the spammer's efforts. In many cases, this now involves virus infected zombies sending email. Thus, the main effect of these is to make spammers try harder to infect more machines.
If you switch cell or local providers, you can keep your phone number in many places now. Didn't used to be able to do so, but can now.
I used:
t ters/signet.html as the 10th result.
jack london detective -barleycorn -"by -jack -london"
on Google and got http://www.idiotsguides.com/static/html/us/newsle
Note: London didn't write detective novels. He appears as a *character* in novels written by Peter King. Still didn't help BrainBoost. When I tried "Who wrote the books in which jack london appears as a detective?" I didn't get any results.
One of the novels *is* in the link I found on Google. Searching for jack london peter king finds more links.
"Last yearm who would have believed you if you said that Google would offer e-mail? Not many people"
In what world are you living? GMail was an obvious expansion of their market given Yahoo's move into search. It made perfect sense the first time that I heard it.
"The next thing to realise is that in the Libertarian financial world (as I understand it), the rampant inflation that effectively forces you to invest or lose purchasing power wouldn't exist"
Actually, Badnarik's position is that the Fed's monopoly on printing money would cease. This would *increase* inflation (inflation is caused by the effective money supply increasing faster than production), not decrease it. Further, inflation is not the only reason one needs a 401k. In general, a 401k should be able to outperform inflation by about 10%. This causes the 401k to double in value every seven years. Thus, the 401k allows one to increase the effectiveness of one's savings far beyond their original value.
Investing in small numbers of companies is stupid. A large part of successful investing is spreading the risks over multiple companies. For example, peanut butter sells well during recessions. Luxuries do not. Therefore, one should invest in companies that sell each kind of product so as to be prepared for both situations.
Finally, the idea that *anyone* can successfully understand *all* the projects that even *one* company undertakes is ridiculous. Enron, et.al. had a full accounting agency auditing their books and they got away with cooking them for several years. Thousands of employees lost their pensions because they were fully invested in their own companies. Who better to perceive problems than an employee of the company?