Did someone capture these girls and force them to star in porn?
Or did they agree to it?
Y'see... in America, we've decided that reaching 18 means you're an adult, and able to make your own decisions. You seem to want to raise this number to 25, thereby "protecting" all the 18-24s from the horrible possibility that they might *shudder* decide what to do with their own lives. *gasp*
But, if we raise it to 25, then you'll just say "the poor 25-32 year olds who didn't know better" and then we'll raise it to 32. wash. rinse. repeat.
So, why are we all shocked at how insecure a system of mailing passwords is?
I mean... PINs are 4 digit all-numeric codes. That's not *that* *hard* to crack... 10000 possibilities, except that the auto-generated ones probably automatically eliminate 0000, 1111, 2222,... as well as 1234, 2345, 3456, 4567,... and 9876, 8765,...
All the "too-obvious" ones probably eliminate another 100 or so.
If they're human-generated ones, just try valid combinations of month/year or month/day that eliminates a whole bunch more, since that says the first digit is 0 or 1, and I bet a lot of people use someone's birthday as the code. Or a 4-digit year for something important... you could probably build a list of less that 1000 that are really common for human-selected PINs.
Because I'm not the one responsable... the merchants are.
Though, when shopping at less-reputable online shops I do use the virtual-account-number tool from my CC company... basically get a new card #, exp date, and credit limit for each transaction...
You have to activate your card when you first getting it by calling a special phone number.
You don't have to enter any secret info, but you do have to call from your home telephone number (or whatever telephone number you gave when applying for the card).
As for use... you can get a PIN for your credit card, but it's only used when you try to do a cash-advance transaction (use credit card like an ATM card).
Otherwise it's swipe, [sometimes show ID], and sign. and now some places (like starbucks) are lazy and don't ask for ID or signature... they figure it's worth it to just eat the loss on the small % of coffee-buyers who use stolen cards.
When properly implemented, Palladium does tons of really really terrible things. And also makes spyware and viruses much much much less troublesome, thereby making everyone overlook all the badness and buy it anyway.
It's *ending* with Java. I graduated with a degree in Computer Science. I learned Perl, C, C++, Java, and the tiniest bit of LISP (ugh!) while I was there.
However, it is entirely possible to graduate from my school with a degree in Computer Science knowing only one language. Java.
That's a problem, because there's way more to software engineering than just Java. And no, they didn't teach how the JVM actually worked. Just enough to get people to be able to compile their code.
Yes, I've seen some laptop drives with all sorts of interesting characteristics regarding physical forces.
IBM at one point made a laptop that would detect if it was being dropped and stop the disks before it hit the ground. I don't know if this is technology in the laptop or technology in the drive itself. But if it is the latter then you have an excellent point.
Well, if it's a hot-swap 20GB, for $100, then it's only about a 100% markup... I would expect such a drive to cost like $50...
Of course in a console environment, there's 0 reason why they should use a 20GB 2.5" drive... they should use an 80GB 3.5" drive (since they cost within about $5 of each other).
Think about how much the game uses the face buttons, and realize how much you'd lose if the controls were designed so that your right thumb was on the analog stick most of the time.
You've just made my point. They didn't do it because that's ideal from a gameplay perspective. They did it because it was the only way they could make the interface playable without having more thumbs.
I seem to have given the wrong impression... I didn't want Metroid Prime to be an FPS. My biggest complaint with the game is that they took Metroid, a game that I ADORE and made it into a cross between Metroid and (insert favorite FPS here) -- and the result was a mediocre-at-best Metroid game and a mediocre-at-best-FPS all in one.
I don't think they failed because the interface is rough. I think the interface is rough because they failed to bring Metroid -- the same Metroid I know and love from the 2d consoles -- to 3d. Metroid Prime never felt like a Metroid game to me. It always felt like... a bad FPS with a little adventuriness...
I realize that's my opinion, and the enormous sucess of Metroid Prime proves that I'm in the minority on this one (if the arguments friends start with me that all begin "you're insane!" or "are you insane?" regarding this game weren't hint enough).
They had to add the autojumping thing because the movement and control was so bad that if you had to do it yourself you'd never manage it.
Same with autotarget. The game's UI was so unplayably bad that they had to make a "do it for me" button...
This is not the only [extremely popular] game to suffer from this problem. For instance Metroid Prime -- a huge hit -- also has such an unplayably bad interface that they had to add things like autotarget.
And I truly despise both games because they took something fun and made in completely pointless and unplayable just so they could do it "all 3d"
Incidentally, notice how badly this goes when taken the other way.
Can you think of a single videogame-turned-movie that was any good?
The only one I can think of that isn't pretty universally hated is Final Fantasy... I didn't like it much, but some people did. Other than that... I can't think of any.
Apple could sue you, but they'd have no case. In fact, Apple *would* sue you, and Jobs would throw a temper tantrum in some media outlet. But they'd still have no case. So long as your product wasn't marketed as an "iPod" -- or anything someone might confuse with "iPod" (so don't try "uPod" -- that ought to be legal, but it makes Apple's case go from "no case" to "not likely" -- and since they've got money and lawyers, that's a big risk.)
Microsoft could sue you, and then you'd be the one who has to deal with the patent headache... you'd win... if you didn't run out of money first. You might possibly perhaps if you're really really nice get a little help from Apple in your case, as they'd have a vested interest in invalidating the MS patent -- even though Jobs would probably want to see you burn for ripping off his iPod.
Re:Effecitve filtering will end spam
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it (*) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (*) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Re:You can't catch it all
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
I saw this somewhere else, and I liked it... so, here goes:
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (*) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (*) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (*) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
In fact, given my personal experiences with Yahoo's search, I have considerable anecdotal evidence that says the same thing.
However, if I made Ye Ultimate Search Engine that had 100 billion pages in the index, but was also such an extremely awesome search engine that it never, ever, ever showed a page that wasn't highly relevant to the topic being searched for, it is likely that I would show, on average, fewer pages than either Yahoo or Google.
Say Google has 8 billion pages, and the average page has 4500 keywords that return it.
Suppose that yahoo has 16 billion pages, but each has, on average, only 400 keywords that return that page as a result.
Google would win this competition even though Yahoo had the larger database.
My point wasn't that I think Yahoo is better than, or even as good as, Google -- just that I don't find the experimental results from this study to be meaningful in the debate.
the trouble is, I could make a search engine that returned 999 results no matter what you searched for...
the thing is, this study does not (and really can not) measure the more important thing -- what percentage of results are actually *relevant* to the material searched for.
Could be that Google's "smaller" index is searched by a less picky search tool that gives more results because it doesn't sucessfully eliminate as many useless pages.
You know, I think it's interesting that in a game called Grand Theft Auto, where the primary goals are to further organized crime, murder people, steal cars, traffic in drugs, and outwit and outshoot cops, I think it's interesting that the "objectionable" part of the game is that you might find and hire a prostitute.
Apparently the idea of human beings having sex is more repugnant than the idea of human beings knifing, shooting, and driving cars over people.
Damn straight. Having an outlet for rage is a good thing. A necessary thing. Would you rather your child kill the aliens or killing their "buddies" at school...
My parents let me play whatever videogames I wanted, and would generally buy me whatever game I wanted. (Not that I could have all the games I wanted -- but if they were buying me a game, and had $40 to spend, I could have any game that cost $40 or less...)
But, you see, 12-15ish years ago that was OK. There were relatively few SNES games that weren't appropriate for kids. I mean, I remember the original Mortal Kombat... this was the first game that parents ever encountered that wasn't "OK for the kids." They were outraged that this designed-exclusively-for-little-kids entertainment medium suddenly had a violent game.
That was the beginning...
Parents still haven't realized that video games aren't just for 6-12 year old children anymore -- that 20- and 30-somethings play videogames in their spare time as well... the medium has aged.
But parents (especially in cases like mine where the oldest grew up in the "safe games" age and the youngest is still youngish) haven't caught on yet. They don't even look at the ratings, because, it's just a video-game... one of those cutesy things... pac-man or space invaders, or mario or something cartoony... how bad could it be, right?
Mostly, I think, this particular problem will go away simply by virtue of the fact that current 20-somethings are very aware of the mature games, and when their kids are 12, the parents will know not to give them M or AO games (unless they think the kid can handle it).
In my family's case, I'm occasionally called upon to make sure that whatever game my younger siblings want is "OK" -- parents have no idea how to tell... because games are just foreign to them...
Slashdot Mirror
You say "exploited"
Did someone capture these girls and force them to star in porn?
Or did they agree to it?
Y'see... in America, we've decided that reaching 18 means you're an adult, and able to make your own decisions. You seem to want to raise this number to 25, thereby "protecting" all the 18-24s from the horrible possibility that they might *shudder* decide what to do with their own lives. *gasp*
But, if we raise it to 25, then you'll just say "the poor 25-32 year olds who didn't know better" and then we'll raise it to 32. wash. rinse. repeat.
So, why are we all shocked at how insecure a system of mailing passwords is?
... ... and 9876, 8765, ...
I mean... PINs are 4 digit all-numeric codes. That's not *that* *hard* to crack... 10000 possibilities, except that the auto-generated ones probably automatically eliminate 0000, 1111, 2222,
as well as 1234, 2345, 3456, 4567,
All the "too-obvious" ones probably eliminate another 100 or so.
If they're human-generated ones, just try valid combinations of month/year or month/day
that eliminates a whole bunch more, since that says the first digit is 0 or 1, and I bet a lot of people use someone's birthday as the code. Or a 4-digit year for something important... you could probably build a list of less that 1000 that are really common for human-selected PINs.
or Network Interface Card card
or Universal Product Code code
precisely.
I don't worry that much about credit card fraud.
Because I'm not the one responsable... the merchants are.
Though, when shopping at less-reputable online shops I do use the virtual-account-number tool from my CC company... basically get a new card #, exp date, and credit limit for each transaction...
yes we do.
You have to activate your card when you first getting it by calling a special phone number.
You don't have to enter any secret info, but you do have to call from your home telephone number (or whatever telephone number you gave when applying for the card).
As for use... you can get a PIN for your credit card, but it's only used when you try to do a cash-advance transaction (use credit card like an ATM card).
Otherwise it's swipe, [sometimes show ID], and sign. and now some places (like starbucks) are lazy and don't ask for ID or signature... they figure it's worth it to just eat the loss on the small % of coffee-buyers who use stolen cards.
That's the worst thing about Palladium.
When properly implemented, Palladium does tons of really really terrible things. And also makes spyware and viruses much much much less troublesome, thereby making everyone overlook all the badness and buy it anyway.
The problem isn't starting with Java.
It's *ending* with Java. I graduated with a degree in Computer Science. I learned Perl, C, C++, Java, and the tiniest bit of LISP (ugh!) while I was there.
However, it is entirely possible to graduate from my school with a degree in Computer Science knowing only one language. Java.
That's a problem, because there's way more to software engineering than just Java. And no, they didn't teach how the JVM actually worked. Just enough to get people to be able to compile their code.
Interesting point.
Yes, I've seen some laptop drives with all sorts of interesting characteristics regarding physical forces.
IBM at one point made a laptop that would detect if it was being dropped and stop the disks before it hit the ground. I don't know if this is technology in the laptop or technology in the drive itself. But if it is the latter then you have an excellent point.
Well, if it's a hot-swap 20GB, for $100, then it's only about a 100% markup... I would expect such a drive to cost like $50...
Of course in a console environment, there's 0 reason why they should use a 20GB 2.5" drive... they should use an 80GB 3.5" drive (since they cost within about $5 of each other).
Except for the fact that the stated goal of thh palestinians is the complete eradication of Israel as a state and the Jews as a people...
Since Israel wants to exist, and Jews don't generally want to die, there will never be peace.
There's no negotiating to be done when party A says "we want nothing short of your complete destruction" to party B in the "negotiations"
Except that it's a fantasy game.
For instance, in EVE online, on of the accepted professions is Pirate.
Well, should all the pirates (you know, setting up blockades and forcing people to pay up or be blown up -- that sort of pirate) be sent to jail?
No! That's *part of the game*
Please, compared to adobe acrobat, windows is a damn *lean* piece of software!
Think about how much the game uses the face buttons, and realize how much you'd lose if the controls were designed so that your right thumb was on the analog stick most of the time.
You've just made my point. They didn't do it because that's ideal from a gameplay perspective. They did it because it was the only way they could make the interface playable without having more thumbs.
I seem to have given the wrong impression... I didn't want Metroid Prime to be an FPS. My biggest complaint with the game is that they took Metroid, a game that I ADORE and made it into a cross between Metroid and (insert favorite FPS here) -- and the result was a mediocre-at-best Metroid game and a mediocre-at-best-FPS all in one.
I don't think they failed because the interface is rough. I think the interface is rough because they failed to bring Metroid -- the same Metroid I know and love from the 2d consoles -- to 3d. Metroid Prime never felt like a Metroid game to me. It always felt like... a bad FPS with a little adventuriness...
I realize that's my opinion, and the enormous sucess of Metroid Prime proves that I'm in the minority on this one (if the arguments friends start with me that all begin "you're insane!" or "are you insane?" regarding this game weren't hint enough).
They don't have to keep getting better -- they just can't all be exactly-the-same-as-the-one-we-saw-last-week.
They had to add the autojumping thing because the movement and control was so bad that if you had to do it yourself you'd never manage it.
Same with autotarget. The game's UI was so unplayably bad that they had to make a "do it for me" button...
This is not the only [extremely popular] game to suffer from this problem. For instance Metroid Prime -- a huge hit -- also has such an unplayably bad interface that they had to add things like autotarget.
And I truly despise both games because they took something fun and made in completely pointless and unplayable just so they could do it "all 3d"
Incidentally, notice how badly this goes when taken the other way.
Can you think of a single videogame-turned-movie that was any good?
The only one I can think of that isn't pretty universally hated is Final Fantasy... I didn't like it much, but some people did. Other than that... I can't think of any.
Yes they could.
Apple could sue you, but they'd have no case. In fact, Apple *would* sue you, and Jobs would throw a temper tantrum in some media outlet. But they'd still have no case. So long as your product wasn't marketed as an "iPod" -- or anything someone might confuse with "iPod" (so don't try "uPod" -- that ought to be legal, but it makes Apple's case go from "no case" to "not likely" -- and since they've got money and lawyers, that's a big risk.)
Microsoft could sue you, and then you'd be the one who has to deal with the patent headache... you'd win... if you didn't run out of money first. You might possibly perhaps if you're really really nice get a little help from Apple in your case, as they'd have a vested interest in invalidating the MS patent -- even though Jobs would probably want to see you burn for ripping off his iPod.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (*) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(*) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(*) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I saw this somewhere else, and I liked it... so, here goes:
Your post advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(*) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(*) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Oh, it's very possible that you are right.
In fact, given my personal experiences with Yahoo's search, I have considerable anecdotal evidence that says the same thing.
However, if I made Ye Ultimate Search Engine that had 100 billion pages in the index, but was also such an extremely awesome search engine that it never, ever, ever showed a page that wasn't highly relevant to the topic being searched for, it is likely that I would show, on average, fewer pages than either Yahoo or Google.
Say Google has 8 billion pages, and the average page has 4500 keywords that return it.
Suppose that yahoo has 16 billion pages, but each has, on average, only 400 keywords that return that page as a result.
Google would win this competition even though Yahoo had the larger database.
My point wasn't that I think Yahoo is better than, or even as good as, Google -- just that I don't find the experimental results from this study to be meaningful in the debate.
the trouble is, I could make a search engine that returned 999 results no matter what you searched for...
the thing is, this study does not (and really can not) measure the more important thing -- what percentage of results are actually *relevant* to the material searched for.
Could be that Google's "smaller" index is searched by a less picky search tool that gives more results because it doesn't sucessfully eliminate as many useless pages.
You know, I think it's interesting that in a game called Grand Theft Auto, where the primary goals are to further organized crime, murder people, steal cars, traffic in drugs, and outwit and outshoot cops, I think it's interesting that the "objectionable" part of the game is that you might find and hire a prostitute.
Apparently the idea of human beings having sex is more repugnant than the idea of human beings knifing, shooting, and driving cars over people.
Hear, Hear!
Damn straight. Having an outlet for rage is a good thing. A necessary thing. Would you rather your child kill the aliens or killing their "buddies" at school...
Absolutely.
My parents let me play whatever videogames I wanted, and would generally buy me whatever game I wanted. (Not that I could have all the games I wanted -- but if they were buying me a game, and had $40 to spend, I could have any game that cost $40 or less...)
But, you see, 12-15ish years ago that was OK. There were relatively few SNES games that weren't appropriate for kids. I mean, I remember the original Mortal Kombat... this was the first game that parents ever encountered that wasn't "OK for the kids." They were outraged that this designed-exclusively-for-little-kids entertainment medium suddenly had a violent game.
That was the beginning...
Parents still haven't realized that video games aren't just for 6-12 year old children anymore -- that 20- and 30-somethings play videogames in their spare time as well... the medium has aged.
But parents (especially in cases like mine where the oldest grew up in the "safe games" age and the youngest is still youngish) haven't caught on yet. They don't even look at the ratings, because, it's just a video-game... one of those cutesy things... pac-man or space invaders, or mario or something cartoony... how bad could it be, right?
Mostly, I think, this particular problem will go away simply by virtue of the fact that current 20-somethings are very aware of the mature games, and when their kids are 12, the parents will know not to give them M or AO games (unless they think the kid can handle it).
In my family's case, I'm occasionally called upon to make sure that whatever game my younger siblings want is "OK" -- parents have no idea how to tell... because games are just foreign to them...
I never thought Diablo really deserved it's M rating...
I mean, it's hardly in the same order of magnitude as GTA:Vice City...
Diablo has animated violence, with occasional animated gore. Not particularly rough...
As for the whole Hell thing... doesn't sound any worse than what you're supposed to here about in church, is it?