To just change the email system around isn't feasable. The sheer thinking of a WORLDWIDE change to the entire email system is actually quite propsterous.
You have to make due with what you have, not try to change everything around. By changing everything around, you are avoiding the old problems in lieu of ones you haven't thought about yet.
Sure. And Man Was Never Meant To Fly. And 640K will be enough for anybody. IBM forcast at one time that there was enough market in the world for 5-10 computers.
If you claim that email isn't going to change, that geeks armed with technology are going to just let email communications go away, that no new software is going to be written, and that spammers are going to win - then you better start posting as AC, 'cause all you are doing is trolling.
Change will happen. I'm sorry to hear that you'll be shocked when it does.
Imagine my lack of surprise at a Mormon bothering people at home trying to sell them something.
Telemarketing is big business in Utah. If I recall correctly, the only "no" votes on the recent Do Not Call list came from the folks representing Utah. There isn't a lot there. In order to bring in money, they harass everyone else. Fuck 'em.
If that is true, then he has no business trying to fly an airplane over Antartica. My experience that most "explorers" who try to set records for "first-this" (like flying a single-engine plane over the South Pole) are rich folks with too much time and too much money.
Actually, I think I got that wrong. I re-read the article I quoted after I had posted the link, and it says something similar - but not the same. Here's the quote...
Saddam Hussein was captured based on information from a member of a family "close to him," Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno said Sunday.
Maj. Gen. Odierno, the commander of the 4th Infantry Division that captured Mr. Hussein, said over the last 10 days soldiers have questioned "five to 10 members" of families "close to Saddam."
"Finally we got the ultimate information from one of these individuals," he said.
So it sonds like it wasn't his family, but someone from "a family close to Saddam". I do wonder if they owned the land where his hidey-hole was at?
In any other situation, someone who diverted to a foreign airport unexpectedly, for legitimate reasons, would be supplied with fuel at the local rate, provided the pilot had means of payment.
And what is "the local rate" for gas in Antarctica?
This is a supply and demand situation. He's making demands that exceed the supply.
Now what happens if he wants to stay with his plane and try to buy gas from the next shipment? If they act to prevent that, then I think they've crossed the line.
This is a millionaire with an expensive and dangerous hobby. It isn't their job to hold his hand. If he wants gas shipped in, he can have it shipped in himself.
They don't run a gas station. They don't carry hundreds of gallons of gas that they don't need in case someone drops in unexpected. And they may not want to risk "helping" him only to find that he crashed an hour after taking off again.
I say let the millionaire find and fund his own solution. They are keeping him alive, warm and fed. And they'll fly him home. They don't owe him any more than that.
Now he has been. He, not bin Laden, will be at the forefront of millions of Americans' minds, seen as a defeated figurehead for terrorist activity -- despite the fact that he was not responsible for 9/11.
Thanksgiving day, I was talking to my girlfriends brother-in-law. He claimed that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, and still believed he had WMD's. He had very strong feelings about it. It was yet another reminder that for a lot of people, facts/evidence/truth have no bearing on what they believe. I suspect the guy has spent a bit too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I don't know much about him. The one thing that I do know is that his campaign has been caught sending email spam on at least two occassions. That's enough to keep me from voting for him. The press can talk all they want about how he's "used the internet effectively" but spammers suck, and I'm not going to vote for one.
ma kroppinl badongis feeple korp maningis prorping da kuul latork miffle cla tonk chingah glompion pifert maningis
zn xebccvay onqbatvf srrcyr xbec znavatvf cebecvat qn xhhy yngbex zvssyr pyn gbax puvatnu tybzcvba cvsreg znavatvf
Sorry, but if that's the best you can do, ROT13 is all the time I'm willig to give you. Post under your real account, or email me with your problem, or whatever. But trolling is a waste of your time and mine, and I'm not going to put a lot of effort into figuring you out if you just keep posting nonsense.
You may be right in hating spam, but you have said an done things that make many hate you. JIHAD!
Yes, there are some people that hate me. Spammers, mostly. You, whoever you are, for reasons unknown, have taken me personally under your wing. I'm not too worried about what the spammers think of me, or what you think of me. I have no idea who you are, or what your problem is. But since you're just trolling, I don't expect you to tell me. Chances are, to do so you would have to admit who you are, and we all know that isn't likely to happen.
But what if they don't recognize that what they are doing is spam?
Then someone is likely to tell them. Either someone like you, or their ISP, or their friends or employees, or SPEWS or SpamCop or some individual sends a spam complaint about them.
The law won't stop the hard core spammers. It will make it a lot easier to convince the people such as you described that it *is* spam, and that they *shouldn't* do it. That means that if they do start spamming, they'll hear complaints from someplace, they'll be told that it's illegal. If they continue to spam they are no longer the innocents you've described.
Enforcement of the law is harder, but it's not as big a problem as is normally made out. The problem is, there is no funding for enforcement. The Feds claim you can report spam to uce@ftc.gov. Many states have similar. But those are basically ignored because they don't have the funding.
But if they hired 10 geeks and 10 legal-types, and set aside $2,000,000 a year for funding, the fines would likely replace the expenses. The small-timers would all quit. Some of the scam artists wouldn't want to risk the attention, and would quit. And some would continue - but almost all from outside the US. The various blacklists have known how to block all communication with them for a long time.
The spammers already know this is going to happen. That's why their last option is to be breaking into other peoples computers. They need someone else to send the spam. They need someone else to host the website.
But how many "innocents" are going to go that far?
The geeks will be the ones to solve the problem, but laws can make their job easier. Unfortunately, the law we are apparently going to get isn't a very good one. And it bites that it'll overrule the California law. But the US is a major part of the problem, and continuing to tell small time spammers "Well, it's not illegal" isn't going to solve the problem. They need to be told "Spam is illegal".
The people you describe - those who are spamming but don't realize it - are the one real advantage of a no spam law. A law isn't going to stop the hard-core spammers. However, a lot of the businesses such as you describe will decide that they need to find another method of marketing if spam is illegal.
Spam does not enhance free speech, it inhibits it. Spam forces people to hide their email address, to run filters to get rid of the junk (which sometimes means loosing the real messages) and in some cases, just plain discourages people from using the net.
Spam is no more free speech than your local bookie painting his ad on the side of your house or car is free speech. In fact, to come close, he would have to bill you for the paint.
Here in the US it has become illegal to fight back
It is also illegal when the spammers do it. There is, quite obviously, no enforcement. Without enforcement, the question is no longer whether it is legal, but whether it is moral.
How come the idea of e-stamps is not getting any traction? The concept is that you are assessed a small charge for sending unwanted mail.
Right now, it's easy to pretend that the email came from someplace else. It's hard to prove who sent the email. Until that problem is solved, trying to charge per-email is just going to force all of the costs on innocents. Spammers are already spoofing my domain in their crap, and I'm not going to pay a per-email charge when they do it to make you happy.
If you can prove who sent the mail and who didn't, then a whole lot of the spam problem gets very easy, and a per-email charge isn't needed.
And a per-email charge will kill things like Hotmail,/., Lockergnome, and most mailing lists.
The "solution" that you suggest would essentially ruin email. I'd like to find a solution to spam, but one that leaves email useless for anyone but marketers sucks.
I dont see what the technical or social barriers are. For example, it would not require any change in the way mail is transported. Instead it would all be handled by the recipient's browser.
Browswers are great for, well, browsing. But for email, most of us use email programs.
Apparently you need a bit of education about mersenne primes.
A mersenne number is defined by 2^N-1 where N is prime. If N isn't prime, it isn't a mersenne number. (In your example, 2^4-1=15, you didn't have a prime in the N spot, so you aren't even looking at a mersenne number.) Not all mersenne numbers are prime. In fact, most are not. If they were, it would be incredibly easy to find large prime numbers.
2^N-1 is the basic math behind mersenne primes. It doesn't mean that you can plug any number into the N position and come up with a prime. However, if you go the other way, if 2^N-1 is prime, then N is prime, every time.
If N is prime, 2^N-1 is not always prime. However, the likelyhood that it *is* prime increases dramatically as compared to testing a random number with the same number of digits.
2^N-1 where N is not prime is meaningless, and has nothing to do with mersenne numbers.
The point of using mersenne numbers is that testing large numbers (in the millions of digits range) can-and-does take a long time. Mersenne numbers are more likely to be prime than other numbers. So instead of testing everything, if you test just mersenne numbers, you are more likely to find large primes. Testing only the mersenne numbers doesn't mean that you'll find every prime number. There are almost certainly a large number of unknown primes with less than 6.3 million digits - but finding that largest one was based on testing a large number of mersenne numbers.
http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
will help if you want to know instead of spouting bullshit. There are links there which will explain the math, the history, etc. If you just want to talk without knowing what you are talking about, you are already on the right track.
Re:I think my form of encryption is better
on
RSA-576 Factored
·
· Score: 1
Double ROT13.
That was, quite possibly, the first highly modded "funny" post that I've ever seen on/. which was actually funny, and it's even on-topic!
Pbatenghyngvbaf.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to make due with what you have, not try to change everything around. By changing everything around, you are avoiding the old problems in lieu of ones you haven't thought about yet.
Sure. And Man Was Never Meant To Fly. And 640K will be enough for anybody. IBM forcast at one time that there was enough market in the world for 5-10 computers.
If you claim that email isn't going to change, that geeks armed with technology are going to just let email communications go away, that no new software is going to be written, and that spammers are going to win - then you better start posting as AC, 'cause all you are doing is trolling.
Change will happen. I'm sorry to hear that you'll be shocked when it does.
Telemarketing is big business in Utah. If I recall correctly, the only "no" votes on the recent Do Not Call list came from the folks representing Utah. There isn't a lot there. In order to bring in money, they harass everyone else. Fuck 'em.
Thieves make their living by stealing. That doesn't make it acceptable.
On Dec 17th, 1903, the Wright Brothers made history. Flight has come a long way in 100 years.
That should be "If you go after America, we'll get somebody."
This story says the tip came from a family member.0 031214.wtips1214/BNStory/Front/
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.2
And what is "the local rate" for gas in Antarctica?
This is a supply and demand situation. He's making demands that exceed the supply.
This is a millionaire with an expensive and dangerous hobby. It isn't their job to hold his hand. If he wants gas shipped in, he can have it shipped in himself.
They don't run a gas station. They don't carry hundreds of gallons of gas that they don't need in case someone drops in unexpected. And they may not want to risk "helping" him only to find that he crashed an hour after taking off again.
I say let the millionaire find and fund his own solution. They are keeping him alive, warm and fed. And they'll fly him home. They don't owe him any more than that.
Thanksgiving day, I was talking to my girlfriends brother-in-law. He claimed that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, and still believed he had WMD's. He had very strong feelings about it. It was yet another reminder that for a lot of people, facts/evidence/truth have no bearing on what they believe. I suspect the guy has spent a bit too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I can understand why some people don't like fantasy.
I don't understand why people who don't like fantasy post to Slashdots about LotR.
zn xebccvay onqbatvf srrcyr xbec znavatvf cebecvat qn xhhy yngbex zvssyr pyn gbax puvatnu tybzcvba cvsreg znavatvf Sorry, but if that's the best you can do, ROT13 is all the time I'm willig to give you. Post under your real account, or email me with your problem, or whatever. But trolling is a waste of your time and mine, and I'm not going to put a lot of effort into figuring you out if you just keep posting nonsense.
Yes, there are some people that hate me. Spammers, mostly. You, whoever you are, for reasons unknown, have taken me personally under your wing. I'm not too worried about what the spammers think of me, or what you think of me. I have no idea who you are, or what your problem is. But since you're just trolling, I don't expect you to tell me. Chances are, to do so you would have to admit who you are, and we all know that isn't likely to happen.
Then someone is likely to tell them. Either someone like you, or their ISP, or their friends or employees, or SPEWS or SpamCop or some individual sends a spam complaint about them.
The law won't stop the hard core spammers. It will make it a lot easier to convince the people such as you described that it *is* spam, and that they *shouldn't* do it. That means that if they do start spamming, they'll hear complaints from someplace, they'll be told that it's illegal. If they continue to spam they are no longer the innocents you've described.
Enforcement of the law is harder, but it's not as big a problem as is normally made out. The problem is, there is no funding for enforcement. The Feds claim you can report spam to uce@ftc.gov. Many states have similar. But those are basically ignored because they don't have the funding.
But if they hired 10 geeks and 10 legal-types, and set aside $2,000,000 a year for funding, the fines would likely replace the expenses. The small-timers would all quit. Some of the scam artists wouldn't want to risk the attention, and would quit. And some would continue - but almost all from outside the US. The various blacklists have known how to block all communication with them for a long time.
The spammers already know this is going to happen. That's why their last option is to be breaking into other peoples computers. They need someone else to send the spam. They need someone else to host the website.
But how many "innocents" are going to go that far?
The geeks will be the ones to solve the problem, but laws can make their job easier. Unfortunately, the law we are apparently going to get isn't a very good one. And it bites that it'll overrule the California law. But the US is a major part of the problem, and continuing to tell small time spammers "Well, it's not illegal" isn't going to solve the problem. They need to be told "Spam is illegal".
The people you describe - those who are spamming but don't realize it - are the one real advantage of a no spam law. A law isn't going to stop the hard-core spammers. However, a lot of the businesses such as you describe will decide that they need to find another method of marketing if spam is illegal.
Spam is no more free speech than your local bookie painting his ad on the side of your house or car is free speech. In fact, to come close, he would have to bill you for the paint.
It is also illegal when the spammers do it. There is, quite obviously, no enforcement. Without enforcement, the question is no longer whether it is legal, but whether it is moral.
The spammers have been DDoSing anti-spam sites. Perhaps it's time to return fire.
Right now, it's easy to pretend that the email came from someplace else. It's hard to prove who sent the email. Until that problem is solved, trying to charge per-email is just going to force all of the costs on innocents. Spammers are already spoofing my domain in their crap, and I'm not going to pay a per-email charge when they do it to make you happy.
If you can prove who sent the mail and who didn't, then a whole lot of the spam problem gets very easy, and a per-email charge isn't needed.
And a per-email charge will kill things like Hotmail, /., Lockergnome, and most mailing lists.
The "solution" that you suggest would essentially ruin email. I'd like to find a solution to spam, but one that leaves email useless for anyone but marketers sucks.
I dont see what the technical or social barriers are. For example, it would not require any change in the way mail is transported. Instead it would all be handled by the recipient's browser.
Browswers are great for, well, browsing. But for email, most of us use email programs.
Apparently you need a bit of education about mersenne primes.
A mersenne number is defined by 2^N-1 where N is prime. If N isn't prime, it isn't a mersenne number. (In your example, 2^4-1=15, you didn't have a prime in the N spot, so you aren't even looking at a mersenne number.) Not all mersenne numbers are prime. In fact, most are not. If they were, it would be incredibly easy to find large prime numbers.
2^N-1 is the basic math behind mersenne primes. It doesn't mean that you can plug any number into the N position and come up with a prime. However, if you go the other way, if 2^N-1 is prime, then N is prime, every time.
If N is prime, 2^N-1 is not always prime. However, the likelyhood that it *is* prime increases dramatically as compared to testing a random number with the same number of digits.
2^N-1 where N is not prime is meaningless, and has nothing to do with mersenne numbers.
The point of using mersenne numbers is that testing large numbers (in the millions of digits range) can-and-does take a long time. Mersenne numbers are more likely to be prime than other numbers. So instead of testing everything, if you test just mersenne numbers, you are more likely to find large primes. Testing only the mersenne numbers doesn't mean that you'll find every prime number. There are almost certainly a large number of unknown primes with less than 6.3 million digits - but finding that largest one was based on testing a large number of mersenne numbers.
http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm will help if you want to know instead of spouting bullshit. There are links there which will explain the math, the history, etc. If you just want to talk without knowing what you are talking about, you are already on the right track.
No? Tell me what this means...
That was, quite possibly, the first highly modded "funny" post that I've ever seen on /. which was actually funny, and it's even on-topic!
Pbatenghyngvbaf.