What, this extortionist thinks that people will honestly believe that a legitimate organization is now sending child porn?
The "legitimate organization" is an off shore casino. In many peoples minds, that makes them somewhat less than legitimate. It also lowers the interest the feds are going to have in chasing them down. If the same thing happened to, say, Ebay, or Google, then I think that various governments would be much more concerned about it.
This is a new twist on an age old tactic. Rob an honest citizen, they can certainly report you. Rob a drug dealer, he can't exactly call the cops saying "Hey, dat bum Joe done stole my coke!".
I think you're missing my point. Taking your foot off the brake to stop the vehicle is counterintuitive.
I think you are missing his point. In order for the auto-park to work, you foot must be lightly on the brake. If you want to stop, you can slam down on the brake. Or you can take your foot off the brake. Either way, the car stops.
Making the driver keep light pressure on the brake is a good plan. That avoids the "driver gets out of the car" thing that someone else mentioned.
If stomping down hard on the brake wouldn't stop the process, I would agree with you, but since it does, then I don't understand all your complaining.
Personally, I don't see this as a useful feature. Also, I think some safety should be added to it to handle unexpected movement of other cars, people, etc while the process is going on.
Your claims that the shuttles are one-shot deals show that you don't have a clue. You may not like having that poitned out, but in fact, that is clear evidence that either you don't understand even the basics of the subject being discussed, or else that you are willing to tell blatent lies in order to support your argument.
while it's possible to always have a mistake, having people double check a project from the ground up will almost always find the problems.
That's like saying that the weather can be reliably predicted by having a 2nd weatherman double check the forcast. Sorry, but in real life, there are too many unknown variables, and it just doesn't work that way.
Considering what they are have done and are doing, I think NASA has done incredible things with a better safety record than would be expected. It *is* rocket science, not Boiling-Water 101. Yes, mistakes happen. I believe that is unavoidable.
If you're expecting this to result from the development of human level AI I wouldn't bet on it. In order to solve problems not predicted by its creators it will have to make some leaps of intuition the way humans do when they solve problems.
Many people tend to think of computers as a "us vs them" kind of thing. Can the best human play better chess than the best computer? That sort of thing.
I see computers as a tool. I, as a human, can remember more things, do more calculations, be more productive, and do things I could not otherwise do, because I can use the computer to help.
An AI that has all of the abilities of a human (and presumably none of the flaws?) is still a *long* way away, and may never happen. But AI development should be able to help *humans* make better decisions much sooner than that. Say, for instance, starting _now_.
Sure they can. Pretty much any computer can easily beat you or me (or both of us together) at chess these days. Time and time again. Computers make decisions in a manner much different from humans, but they still make decisions.
I'm using an *old* Nokia phone and Cingular service. Would like to stay with Cingular, but I want a bluetooth camera phone, and they seem dead-set on not allowing that. They did, for awhile, carry one on their website, but in order to get that phone, they want to raise your monthly rates by $10 to have some special feature - and that's the point of the bluetooth, I don't think I should *have* to trasfer my pictures via their system. Bluetooth should handle that. Similarly, I should be able to back up the data in my phone (names and numbers) to the computer, I should be able to edit them there if I want, and send them back to the phone.
But the phone companies don't want that, as then you don't have to pay $10 a month extra for their service. So I keep looking around, using my old, outdated, barely working Nokia, because if I can't get what I want, then barely working is good enough, and I haven't been able to find what I want. I don't want to sign a 2 year contract for a new phone that still won't do what I want. When they make one available that will do the things I want, I don't want to be stuck in a contract.
Shut the fuck up. It's not your computer and you have no say in its administration.
You sound like a very unprofessional, low level flunky. It isn't your machine, either. Your are some schmoe on the low end of the IT support department, spending most of your time setting up a new machine, installing software, and swapping out bad CD drives or memory to replace whatever died.
Our job is not to help you be more productive in your job. It's to help the company be more productive. You're just a tiny little part of the equation.
Your job is also a tiny little part of the equation. And your job shouldn't be to stop us from doing our job.
Working as a programmer in several software shops, where the software we sold *was* our income, I've seen your type. You keep us from getting our job done.
The email address belongs to me, not the service provider, and I should be able to send from wherever I see fit.
Then *you* send mail to your friends. If the NYTimes does it and claims to be you, they aren't telling the truth. Mail from the NYTimes should say it is from them. Mail from you should say it is from you.
As for privacy concerns, I agree that one must read carefully the terms and policies of any ISP, free webmail, forwarding service, photo management service, etc.
Even if you carefully read those terms, some sites will outright lie to you, or will change their policies later and start passing out your address as soon as they do. If I want my friends to read an article, I send them a link to the article, I don't give their address to the site and hope that the site is honest.
The greeting-card/news-story sites that let you put in your email address, and your friends, are clearly forging mail.
They put your friends email address in the "from" line and send it to you. Notice that the "friend" didn't send it to you, they did. They lied about who the mail was from.
The "friend" may be a friend in truth - but he could also be any john doe on the net. These types of systems are just begging to be abused. And they *are* lying about who the mail came from.
They also have a simple solution. They can put their own address in the From line, which allows them to pass an SPF check. (Assuming they've set up their SPF entries.) After all, the email is coming from them. Then, in the body of the message, they can put your "friends" email address.
That doesn't necessarily stop the potential abuse, but it does get them to stop forging other peoples addresses in the headers, and it does let them pass an SPF check.
And if a real friend does this, I can educate my real friend about giving out my address without permission. If he wants to tell me something, he should email me himself, send a copy of the URL, and let me go there if I choose - not give my address to a potential spammer.
Have scripts that autorespond to any "from" that goes to any of the 4 dummy addresses, so as to waste spammers time with false positives.
Your solution turns you into a spammer, and makes me even more of a victim. Spammers forge mail from my domain every day, and you want to send a bunch of crap to me because they do it.
Google has almost everything now, why don't they make their own Anti-Spam domainkey type service?
If every domain has their own home-rolled anti-spam domainkey type service, then they are useless.
For them to be useful, their need to be standards that *most* domains follow.
ISP's aren't going to want to develop and implement different methods of checking for thousands of domains because each decided to do it diffently. What we need is one method which works and isn't patent encumbered, licensed, and owned by some company.
SPF currently seems to be the standard. And unlike the Yahoo and MicroSoft versions, it is simple and available to anyone who wants to use it.
I played a lot of tradewars, too. The MBBS version is still around. But the game has changed. Apparently people don't want to have to think about how to save turns, use them effectively, and that sort of thing any more. So all of the games now are multi-user (which I see as a good thing) and have either unlimited turns or such a huge number that it may as well be unlimited. (And I see that as a bad thing - it takes all the challenge away.)
So technically, this isnt spam or junk mail. Its someones email system doing what its supposed to, returning 'your' email because the sender didnt exist.
Technically, if they are bouncing messages back to me when I didn't send the original message, it is unsolicited email.
Any mail that wasn't delivered because it was a virus shouldn't bounce - everyone *knows* that viruses spoof addresses. If it isn't delivered because a filter decided it was spam, it shouldn't bounce, IMO, as spam usually forges addresses.
At the very least, if they want to bounce it, they should run an SPF check. If SPF says "This isn't legitimate mail from our domain" then bouncing it is just attacking someone innocent. I get a bunch of bounces from forged spam and forged viruses. I didn't send the spam, or the viruses, and sending me a copy of the crap doesn't really help anyone.
Imagine a future where nobody gets paid for content. Ever.
No news service, no newspapers, no TV, no movies, no magazines. Radio would probably continue, but dramatically different from the way it is now. Doesn't sound like a good plan. Dictators would probably love it, though.
You wouldn't by any chance happen to have any way of contacting Wallace would you?
Fax 603-994-0153. I picked it up at one of Wallace's website. (His site has a funny "I'm just an innocent businessman!" rant on it right now.) http://www.passthison.com/
If you registered a domain name, you would start getting spam. If you posted your address on your website, you would start getting spam. If you had actually told what your email address is in your post, you would start getting spam.
Hiding may be a good solution for you. I know that it is for some people. Hiding is *not* a good solution for everyone.
It may be sleazy, but he is correct that if its not against the law yet.. there is little grounds to harass him on that factor..
Spamford claims that he didn't do anything illegal, and based on his sterling reputation, you take him at his word? Pay attention - he's a sleazebag, and sleazebags aren't known for telling the truth.
According to the complaint "Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" is where he is afoul of the law.
Now you can pretend that the law doesn't exist, you can pretend that the only complaint against him is for breaking the spyware law they haven't yet made, you can pretend that Wallace is a freaking angel, and you can pretend that fraud is OK. But that doesn't change the facts, it just shows that you aren't paying attention.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to do it, but this is a "Me Too" post.
The "legitimate organization" is an off shore casino. In many peoples minds, that makes them somewhat less than legitimate. It also lowers the interest the feds are going to have in chasing them down. If the same thing happened to, say, Ebay, or Google, then I think that various governments would be much more concerned about it.
This is a new twist on an age old tactic. Rob an honest citizen, they can certainly report you. Rob a drug dealer, he can't exactly call the cops saying "Hey, dat bum Joe done stole my coke!".
I think you are missing his point. In order for the auto-park to work, you foot must be lightly on the brake. If you want to stop, you can slam down on the brake. Or you can take your foot off the brake. Either way, the car stops.
Making the driver keep light pressure on the brake is a good plan. That avoids the "driver gets out of the car" thing that someone else mentioned.
If stomping down hard on the brake wouldn't stop the process, I would agree with you, but since it does, then I don't understand all your complaining.
Personally, I don't see this as a useful feature. Also, I think some safety should be added to it to handle unexpected movement of other cars, people, etc while the process is going on.
Your friend is a slimeball, which means he'll screw you just like anyone else.
Your claims that the shuttles are one-shot deals show that you don't have a clue. You may not like having that poitned out, but in fact, that is clear evidence that either you don't understand even the basics of the subject being discussed, or else that you are willing to tell blatent lies in order to support your argument.
Are you claiming that they made only one space shuttle? Or are you claiming that each one they did make only flew once?
Doesn't matter - you clearly have no business posting about NASA, as you don't know anything about it.
It could go right over the part that says "Made in China".
That's like saying that the weather can be reliably predicted by having a 2nd weatherman double check the forcast. Sorry, but in real life, there are too many unknown variables, and it just doesn't work that way.
Considering what they are have done and are doing, I think NASA has done incredible things with a better safety record than would be expected. It *is* rocket science, not Boiling-Water 101. Yes, mistakes happen. I believe that is unavoidable.
Many people tend to think of computers as a "us vs them" kind of thing. Can the best human play better chess than the best computer? That sort of thing.
I see computers as a tool. I, as a human, can remember more things, do more calculations, be more productive, and do things I could not otherwise do, because I can use the computer to help.
An AI that has all of the abilities of a human (and presumably none of the flaws?) is still a *long* way away, and may never happen. But AI development should be able to help *humans* make better decisions much sooner than that. Say, for instance, starting _now_.
Sure they can. Pretty much any computer can easily beat you or me (or both of us together) at chess these days. Time and time again. Computers make decisions in a manner much different from humans, but they still make decisions.
But the phone companies don't want that, as then you don't have to pay $10 a month extra for their service. So I keep looking around, using my old, outdated, barely working Nokia, because if I can't get what I want, then barely working is good enough, and I haven't been able to find what I want. I don't want to sign a 2 year contract for a new phone that still won't do what I want. When they make one available that will do the things I want, I don't want to be stuck in a contract.
You sound like a very unprofessional, low level flunky. It isn't your machine, either. Your are some schmoe on the low end of the IT support department, spending most of your time setting up a new machine, installing software, and swapping out bad CD drives or memory to replace whatever died.
Your job is also a tiny little part of the equation. And your job shouldn't be to stop us from doing our job.
Working as a programmer in several software shops, where the software we sold *was* our income, I've seen your type. You keep us from getting our job done.
The email address belongs to me, not the service provider, and I should be able to send from wherever I see fit. Then *you* send mail to your friends. If the NYTimes does it and claims to be you, they aren't telling the truth. Mail from the NYTimes should say it is from them. Mail from you should say it is from you. As for privacy concerns, I agree that one must read carefully the terms and policies of any ISP, free webmail, forwarding service, photo management service, etc. Even if you carefully read those terms, some sites will outright lie to you, or will change their policies later and start passing out your address as soon as they do. If I want my friends to read an article, I send them a link to the article, I don't give their address to the site and hope that the site is honest.
I wouldn't have any problem with you abusing the spammers. But when you want to abuse me, a victim, I say fuck off and die.
They put your friends email address in the "from" line and send it to you. Notice that the "friend" didn't send it to you, they did. They lied about who the mail was from.
The "friend" may be a friend in truth - but he could also be any john doe on the net. These types of systems are just begging to be abused. And they *are* lying about who the mail came from.
They also have a simple solution. They can put their own address in the From line, which allows them to pass an SPF check. (Assuming they've set up their SPF entries.) After all, the email is coming from them. Then, in the body of the message, they can put your "friends" email address.
That doesn't necessarily stop the potential abuse, but it does get them to stop forging other peoples addresses in the headers, and it does let them pass an SPF check.
And if a real friend does this, I can educate my real friend about giving out my address without permission. If he wants to tell me something, he should email me himself, send a copy of the URL, and let me go there if I choose - not give my address to a potential spammer.
Your solution turns you into a spammer, and makes me even more of a victim. Spammers forge mail from my domain every day, and you want to send a bunch of crap to me because they do it.
If every domain has their own home-rolled anti-spam domainkey type service, then they are useless.
For them to be useful, their need to be standards that *most* domains follow.
ISP's aren't going to want to develop and implement different methods of checking for thousands of domains because each decided to do it diffently. What we need is one method which works and isn't patent encumbered, licensed, and owned by some company.
SPF currently seems to be the standard. And unlike the Yahoo and MicroSoft versions, it is simple and available to anyone who wants to use it.
I played a lot of tradewars, too. The MBBS version is still around. But the game has changed. Apparently people don't want to have to think about how to save turns, use them effectively, and that sort of thing any more. So all of the games now are multi-user (which I see as a good thing) and have either unlimited turns or such a huge number that it may as well be unlimited. (And I see that as a bad thing - it takes all the challenge away.)
Technically, if they are bouncing messages back to me when I didn't send the original message, it is unsolicited email.
Any mail that wasn't delivered because it was a virus shouldn't bounce - everyone *knows* that viruses spoof addresses. If it isn't delivered because a filter decided it was spam, it shouldn't bounce, IMO, as spam usually forges addresses.
At the very least, if they want to bounce it, they should run an SPF check. If SPF says "This isn't legitimate mail from our domain" then bouncing it is just attacking someone innocent. I get a bunch of bounces from forged spam and forged viruses. I didn't send the spam, or the viruses, and sending me a copy of the crap doesn't really help anyone.
No news service, no newspapers, no TV, no movies, no magazines. Radio would probably continue, but dramatically different from the way it is now. Doesn't sound like a good plan. Dictators would probably love it, though.
Fax 603-994-0153. I picked it up at one of Wallace's website. (His site has a funny "I'm just an innocent businessman!" rant on it right now.) http://www.passthison.com/
Hiding may be a good solution for you. I know that it is for some people. Hiding is *not* a good solution for everyone.
Bullshit.
According to the complaint "Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" is where he is afoul of the law.
Now you can pretend that the law doesn't exist, you can pretend that the only complaint against him is for breaking the spyware law they haven't yet made, you can pretend that Wallace is a freaking angel, and you can pretend that fraud is OK. But that doesn't change the facts, it just shows that you aren't paying attention.