The Gamespy headline sure does say or strongly suggest that Gamestop was responding to a request from AAFES. But, the quotage of the Gamestop spokesman doesn't match up at all. It's one thing to respect a direct request from a vendor, but then to turn around and say you are respecting a completely different group of people, that's just stupid. Or maybe not, but it means the spokesman was speaking strategically rather than truthfully.
I decided to try again. Web is not an option. But, instead of saying No Messages, I've changed it to Email. I know, that's backwards, but since the right way doesn't work, I'll see what happens if I simply toggle the setting. Then, if I'm still getting messages, I can come back and try to turn them off. If I still get slashdot spam, i'll just start using the spam button. I suspect that part of slashdot was programmed so long ago that it has rotted in place. But, hey, I mean it. Since you mentioned an option that doesn't exist, I don't believe you've visited that page yourself in awhile.
Yeah? You just quoted the instructions. The procedure doesn't work. Even if I click on Save Prefs. So, it's a little deeper than me being stupid. Does it work on anyone's computer?
We agree with each other. Neither of us see anything respectful in Gamestop's decision to make it inconvenient for military personal to get the game. Maybe you disagree with the subject? I just left the one that was already there. I don't know what Gamestop thinks, but I'm sure it's all to do with PR or marketing and nothing to do with respect. You don't show respect by making it inconvenient for what is probably their best customers. Instead, you generate the possibility of "news" reports on what great lengths soldiers are willing to take to get the game because of it's "popularity".
I agree. Buy only pulling from the military market, they are turning the issue into an advertising gimmick. Not only will this tactic generate more controversy than an everybody or nobody approach, it will become a "forbidden fruit" for the population that has a difficult time obtaining the product. They aren't making it impossible to get, just hard to get. I see no respect at all in playing these kinds of games with our military. The company knows they want the game, they just think there is something to gain by waving it just out of arms reach. And they call it "respect", my ass. The couldn't be more disrespectful.
I don't think anyone is confused about what a VPN is. The point is that it isn't a separate LAN, it depends on the internet. Same wires, same switches. IF the internet has a problem, so does your VPN. A VPN without a functioning internet is virtually nothing at all.
To add my 2 cents, don't vote for your congressman simply because he is powerful. That's the biggest scam in politics. If your congressman has worked himself up into positions of leadership, it's tempting to leave him there. It's a trade off, but is what ever you are getting from your powerful representative worth the corruption and lies? Your congressman might be in a position of leadership, but he must get reelected. Too bad so many citizens don't recognize that before he can get power from the party, he must get power from the people. But, incumbents always get more power from the party than the new guys, and voters like representatives with power, so the incumbent must be pretty bad to lose.
The purpose of the law would be to give them a head start on implementing a system. It can't all be done in a secret conference room. At some point, they would need to hook up to existing structures owned by people who might not want to give access without proof of authorization. Once the system is implemented, theoretically the president could shut down the internet in seconds. Without the head start, it could take days, even with martial law.
I care and I understand. the internet was designed not to have weak spots, yet, this legislation is intended to build in a weak spot on purpose. Then the weak spot will need to be protected somehow. But, creating a weak spot is easier said than done. DNS can exist anywhere. Hosting can be anywhere. We don't have to use the main trunks between cities. But, a lot of these workarounds are beyond the technical ability of the masses. That is the real weak spot. Getting info about alternative methods to be common knowledge. Most people just sit down in front of their "always on" internet and it works. If it doesn't, they say a few magic curse words and reboot.
The government has a lot of computers and controls a lot of routers. It doesn't need to shut off any of them to bring down the internet. It could mount the worlds largest Denial of Service attack on its own citizens and the rest of the world. It could keep it's own intranet up, and bring down everyone else. It could blame Al Qeda for what it's worth. But, if it is legal for the government to have this ability, it doesn't need to be sneaky at all. It can solicit bids and hire contractors in broad daylight.
Yes, I know we are supposed to be a government "of the people", but I'm not comfortable using "rulers" or other more accurate terminology.
As much trouble as disconnecting our servers and routers from the internet would cause, the rest of the world could recover. What would take longer to deal with is if the US government used all those servers and routers to mount a DoS on its citizens and the rest of the world. That would effectively kill the internet, until all connections were cut. This could be done, but if the cable cutting was done by people outside the US, they would problem leave US citizens in the dark.
Bills are so long because legislators, like engineers, try to anticipate every possible scenario in advance. But, they aren't engineers, so the anticipated scenarios are legal situations, not technical or anything else.
For those not fortunate enough to work for a company with T1 lines and secure modems, just use compuserve, mcimail, or even prodigy. Oh wait, what about fidonet and pbboard. Those were the days! Surely the infrastructure still exists.
...and makes it appear that they have something to do with each other.
Negative news is more interesting than positive. People are more attractive to photos of attractive strangers than of unattractive strangers. Throw in another fact, old people are older than most people making news, and you get the results of this study. If the photo is of a well known celebrity or politician, it would still be clicked on more if he was in a scandal. And then another fact, people learn discretion as they age. Some of those young people having bad things happen to them are just immature. Someone established in business or society knows better than to appear on youtube falling down drunk.
It might make more sense to do what the grocery store does. When I buy a product, the little machine next to the cash register spits out a coupon for either a competing product or a "companion" product, that is something that doesn't compete, but would go well with it.
So, instead of seeing the some old smart phone ad for a phone you've already researched, you'd see ads for other phone, cases and earpieces. As a target, I'd rather see a variety of ads. There's more of a chance that I'd see one that's useful. I tend to tune out at best or dislike at worst, an ad that's overplayed.
So does hosting the ads work well for you? Do you have any idea what products your website is promoting? Are you paid enough not to care?
I mean this in all honesty since this ad model wouldn't work if websites didn't find it worthwhile.
I don't host a website with ads, but I do read the New York Times which of my usual news sources, is the biggest user of these stalker ads. They are usually located to the right of the main article. After I see the same ad on more than one page, I tend to scroll down to the comments sooner than I ordinarily would. In other words, I'm less likely to RTFA.
Since that could be a problem, is it possible to tweak the code to put the ad somewhere other than right next to the content?
Thanks, that would work. I just think if slashdot is going to include an unsubscribe link, it should work. Otherwise, they really are just another spammer.
This data center is as real as any mirror site. It has an advantage in that if the government simply pulls the plug, it pulls down every website hosted there. That would be a very unpopular move. People who wouldn't ordinarily rally around Wikileaks will get interested if their email, voip, or web are threatened. If, instead, the government uses legal processes, it could take days or weeks of injunctions and stays of injunctions and good old fashioned foot dragging by the ISP that operates the facility. The Swedish news would be full of "what happens when the internet goes down" scare stories, even if they only wind up shutting down the Wikileaks server. So either way makes the government into a bad guy to the general public.
So, it's all theater. The best protection for Wikileaks is to have mirror sites in several countries, and don't publish the locations of any but this one that's particularly interesting. Then, if this one comes under attack, Wikileaks can just announce "never fear, Sealand is here"
Easier said than done. I get a daily feed of slashdot into my gmail account. I don't need it since I prefer going directly to the website. But, I can't unsubscribe, even when I follow the simple directions.
If it's based on email addresses I send or reply to the most, then all those noreply automated things will drop to the bottom. Thanks Google.
I think it's stupid to send emails that can't be replied to. It's broken communications. Example, all my red netflix envelopes disappeared. When netflix emailed me about why I wasn't returning my DVD's, I replied that I would if they sent me some envelopes. My next message from netflix, we don't accept email, they hadn't read my request. But they send email?
Occam's Razor is a literary device. In real life, things can be ridiculously, even unbelievably complicated. Many real life mysteries wouldn't work as fiction precisely because they are too farfetched. The reader would feel cheated. But, yes, even in real life, you start with the simpler explanations and, if they can't be proved, progress to the more complicated, not because they are more likely, but because they are quicker, easier, and cheaper to investigate. About whether two or three people conspired, well, small conspiracies happen all the time. But, the larger the group of coconspirators, the more likely for it to fall apart. All you have to do is interview everyone separately and trick them into revealing details that they weren't likely to have agreed on in advance. If the plot was extremely complicated, yet all the suspected conspirators tell exactly the same story, it just might be true.
Fortunately, not, it just means she's stuck with the child's poop. Strange way of communicating the point, but she probably wouldn't have custody of the poop if she didn't have custody of the child.
they also know the criteria used to prepare the list. You buy the lists, then see who pops up on more than one list. You might not know every detail of his credit report, but if you buy lists of people in a certain income bracket, with a certain credit score, and a few others, (I think there were 20 possible criteria in the ad) you don't need to pull the complete report to have a very good understanding of the financial situation of someone who appears on multiple lists. They might not pull a report on LordKronos, but if he appears on the DUI list, the mortgage default list, the high risk pool, and rents in the slums, some who buys all those lists will know more about him than his address.
No way, I don't want to stand near a guy who's only 5' 4". That's normal for women, but guys like that tend to have defective personalities. I like to stand near the tall guys.
Slashdot Mirror
The Gamespy headline sure does say or strongly suggest that Gamestop was responding to a request from AAFES. But, the quotage of the Gamestop spokesman doesn't match up at all. It's one thing to respect a direct request from a vendor, but then to turn around and say you are respecting a completely different group of people, that's just stupid. Or maybe not, but it means the spokesman was speaking strategically rather than truthfully.
I decided to try again. Web is not an option. But, instead of saying No Messages, I've changed it to Email. I know, that's backwards, but since the right way doesn't work, I'll see what happens if I simply toggle the setting. Then, if I'm still getting messages, I can come back and try to turn them off. If I still get slashdot spam, i'll just start using the spam button. I suspect that part of slashdot was programmed so long ago that it has rotted in place. But, hey, I mean it. Since you mentioned an option that doesn't exist, I don't believe you've visited that page yourself in awhile.
Yeah? You just quoted the instructions. The procedure doesn't work. Even if I click on Save Prefs. So, it's a little deeper than me being stupid. Does it work on anyone's computer?
We agree with each other. Neither of us see anything respectful in Gamestop's decision to make it inconvenient for military personal to get the game. Maybe you disagree with the subject? I just left the one that was already there. I don't know what Gamestop thinks, but I'm sure it's all to do with PR or marketing and nothing to do with respect. You don't show respect by making it inconvenient for what is probably their best customers. Instead, you generate the possibility of "news" reports on what great lengths soldiers are willing to take to get the game because of it's "popularity".
I agree. Buy only pulling from the military market, they are turning the issue into an advertising gimmick. Not only will this tactic generate more controversy than an everybody or nobody approach, it will become a "forbidden fruit" for the population that has a difficult time obtaining the product. They aren't making it impossible to get, just hard to get. I see no respect at all in playing these kinds of games with our military. The company knows they want the game, they just think there is something to gain by waving it just out of arms reach. And they call it "respect", my ass. The couldn't be more disrespectful.
I don't think anyone is confused about what a VPN is. The point is that it isn't a separate LAN, it depends on the internet. Same wires, same switches. IF the internet has a problem, so does your VPN. A VPN without a functioning internet is virtually nothing at all.
To add my 2 cents, don't vote for your congressman simply because he is powerful. That's the biggest scam in politics. If your congressman has worked himself up into positions of leadership, it's tempting to leave him there. It's a trade off, but is what ever you are getting from your powerful representative worth the corruption and lies? Your congressman might be in a position of leadership, but he must get reelected. Too bad so many citizens don't recognize that before he can get power from the party, he must get power from the people. But, incumbents always get more power from the party than the new guys, and voters like representatives with power, so the incumbent must be pretty bad to lose.
The purpose of the law would be to give them a head start on implementing a system. It can't all be done in a secret conference room. At some point, they would need to hook up to existing structures owned by people who might not want to give access without proof of authorization. Once the system is implemented, theoretically the president could shut down the internet in seconds. Without the head start, it could take days, even with martial law.
I care and I understand. the internet was designed not to have weak spots, yet, this legislation is intended to build in a weak spot on purpose. Then the weak spot will need to be protected somehow. But, creating a weak spot is easier said than done. DNS can exist anywhere. Hosting can be anywhere. We don't have to use the main trunks between cities. But, a lot of these workarounds are beyond the technical ability of the masses. That is the real weak spot. Getting info about alternative methods to be common knowledge. Most people just sit down in front of their "always on" internet and it works. If it doesn't, they say a few magic curse words and reboot.
The government has a lot of computers and controls a lot of routers. It doesn't need to shut off any of them to bring down the internet. It could mount the worlds largest Denial of Service attack on its own citizens and the rest of the world. It could keep it's own intranet up, and bring down everyone else. It could blame Al Qeda for what it's worth. But, if it is legal for the government to have this ability, it doesn't need to be sneaky at all. It can solicit bids and hire contractors in broad daylight.
Yes, I know we are supposed to be a government "of the people", but I'm not comfortable using "rulers" or other more accurate terminology.
As much trouble as disconnecting our servers and routers from the internet would cause, the rest of the world could recover. What would take longer to deal with is if the US government used all those servers and routers to mount a DoS on its citizens and the rest of the world. That would effectively kill the internet, until all connections were cut. This could be done, but if the cable cutting was done by people outside the US, they would problem leave US citizens in the dark.
Bills are so long because legislators, like engineers, try to anticipate every possible scenario in advance. But, they aren't engineers, so the anticipated scenarios are legal situations, not technical or anything else.
For those not fortunate enough to work for a company with T1 lines and secure modems, just use compuserve, mcimail, or even prodigy. Oh wait, what about fidonet and pbboard. Those were the days! Surely the infrastructure still exists.
...and makes it appear that they have something to do with each other.
Negative news is more interesting than positive. People are more attractive to photos of attractive strangers than of unattractive strangers. Throw in another fact, old people are older than most people making news, and you get the results of this study. If the photo is of a well known celebrity or politician, it would still be clicked on more if he was in a scandal. And then another fact, people learn discretion as they age. Some of those young people having bad things happen to them are just immature. Someone established in business or society knows better than to appear on youtube falling down drunk.
It might make more sense to do what the grocery store does. When I buy a product, the little machine next to the cash register spits out a coupon for either a competing product or a "companion" product, that is something that doesn't compete, but would go well with it. So, instead of seeing the some old smart phone ad for a phone you've already researched, you'd see ads for other phone, cases and earpieces. As a target, I'd rather see a variety of ads. There's more of a chance that I'd see one that's useful. I tend to tune out at best or dislike at worst, an ad that's overplayed.
So does hosting the ads work well for you? Do you have any idea what products your website is promoting? Are you paid enough not to care? I mean this in all honesty since this ad model wouldn't work if websites didn't find it worthwhile. I don't host a website with ads, but I do read the New York Times which of my usual news sources, is the biggest user of these stalker ads. They are usually located to the right of the main article. After I see the same ad on more than one page, I tend to scroll down to the comments sooner than I ordinarily would. In other words, I'm less likely to RTFA. Since that could be a problem, is it possible to tweak the code to put the ad somewhere other than right next to the content?
Thanks, that would work. I just think if slashdot is going to include an unsubscribe link, it should work. Otherwise, they really are just another spammer.
This data center is as real as any mirror site. It has an advantage in that if the government simply pulls the plug, it pulls down every website hosted there. That would be a very unpopular move. People who wouldn't ordinarily rally around Wikileaks will get interested if their email, voip, or web are threatened. If, instead, the government uses legal processes, it could take days or weeks of injunctions and stays of injunctions and good old fashioned foot dragging by the ISP that operates the facility. The Swedish news would be full of "what happens when the internet goes down" scare stories, even if they only wind up shutting down the Wikileaks server. So either way makes the government into a bad guy to the general public.
So, it's all theater. The best protection for Wikileaks is to have mirror sites in several countries, and don't publish the locations of any but this one that's particularly interesting. Then, if this one comes under attack, Wikileaks can just announce "never fear, Sealand is here"
Easier said than done. I get a daily feed of slashdot into my gmail account. I don't need it since I prefer going directly to the website. But, I can't unsubscribe, even when I follow the simple directions.
If it's based on email addresses I send or reply to the most, then all those noreply automated things will drop to the bottom. Thanks Google.
I think it's stupid to send emails that can't be replied to. It's broken communications. Example, all my red netflix envelopes disappeared. When netflix emailed me about why I wasn't returning my DVD's, I replied that I would if they sent me some envelopes. My next message from netflix, we don't accept email, they hadn't read my request. But they send email?
You could do aerials
Occam's Razor is a literary device. In real life, things can be ridiculously, even unbelievably complicated. Many real life mysteries wouldn't work as fiction precisely because they are too farfetched. The reader would feel cheated. But, yes, even in real life, you start with the simpler explanations and, if they can't be proved, progress to the more complicated, not because they are more likely, but because they are quicker, easier, and cheaper to investigate. About whether two or three people conspired, well, small conspiracies happen all the time. But, the larger the group of coconspirators, the more likely for it to fall apart. All you have to do is interview everyone separately and trick them into revealing details that they weren't likely to have agreed on in advance. If the plot was extremely complicated, yet all the suspected conspirators tell exactly the same story, it just might be true.
Fortunately, not, it just means she's stuck with the child's poop. Strange way of communicating the point, but she probably wouldn't have custody of the poop if she didn't have custody of the child.
they also know the criteria used to prepare the list. You buy the lists, then see who pops up on more than one list. You might not know every detail of his credit report, but if you buy lists of people in a certain income bracket, with a certain credit score, and a few others, (I think there were 20 possible criteria in the ad) you don't need to pull the complete report to have a very good understanding of the financial situation of someone who appears on multiple lists. They might not pull a report on LordKronos, but if he appears on the DUI list, the mortgage default list, the high risk pool, and rents in the slums, some who buys all those lists will know more about him than his address.
No way, I don't want to stand near a guy who's only 5' 4". That's normal for women, but guys like that tend to have defective personalities. I like to stand near the tall guys.