Or, if like me, you accidentally kill ALL the unnecessary processes, then close process explorer. At that point, it's still windows, it still "works", but you can't LAUNCH anything.
It is, really. Everyone's all uppity about videogames causing violence, but lets face it, football's more prone to cause it.
In fact, I would venture to say that adolescence causes teen violence.
1) They do not reply directly to the spammers. They first question the company that the spam links to, after checking the distribution of spam to that website versus to others (ie: the worst offenders are targeted).
2) For each user signed up, a honey-pot email account is set up. That email is seeded with your "identity" in places spammers look for addresses. It's bait.
3) For each spam recieved at a honey pot, a complaint is sent to the target company. The upshot of which is that if, like a spamming company, the server takes that honeypot account and says, "Hey, it's real!", the spammer will send out more, recieve more - and bog down the server.
I don't see why this is a bad thing; for one thing, it's the natural evolution based on an environment that contains such systems.
A system that uses "real" addresses to send more "business mail". Etiquette dictates that they send only one unless active business is taking place. Etiquette evolves for a reason. Anyways, these systems, called "spammers" don't take the hint, being mostly automated anyway.
In society, breaking etiquitte is annoying, and if continuous, is dealt with by the society. In human civilization, this is done by the public appointing authority, and insisting that to keep this authority, they take care of the etiquette-breakers. There is no such valid authority on the internet. I suggest there never has to be.
Instead, organizations like this develop as community projects. They can be professional and efficient, because they're also mostly automated, but programmed by those who have a very specific target and intent.
Best way to deal with spammers? Exploit a simple cause-effect relationship between incoming form data and outgoing mail, but never initiate contact. Bait? Sure, but don't initiate. Let them hang themselves.
Which is the point, really. Spammers who don't make it to the top of the list aren't targetted. Spammers who actually remove you from the sender list aren't targetted.
Additionally, the link between spam-collection and target-picking is not automated. It's done by the maintainers of the site, who first ASK the company in question to change their advertising methods away from spam.
As for spoofing your enemy's company, I'm sure they have a way of dealing with that; because there's human interaction before target-picking, these sorts of things can be dealt with.
>_>
ok, at $130 a pop, and given that it would take maybe $20 a pop to package and ship OS-X, that's $110 profit/copy.
Apple has something like 6% market share. Assuming that's of all humans living in (just) the US (since it's relatively safe to say that there are a similar number of computers as people), and rough it out to 250,000,000 people in the US, that' 15,000,000 copies of OS-X per revision.
Sum estimated return per revision of OS-X:
$1,650,000,000
A good development team consists of approximately 5 persons per major project. OS-X contains (primarily) the Mach Kernel, the Quartz Window server, the Cocoa scripting API, the Aqua Window manager, and a number of end-user GUI Apps that generally get written over top of existing open source projects, and maintained only when bugs are reported.
Call it 50 humans.
Add administrative support, 25 humans.
Add Steve Jobs (we'll pay him as much as) 5 humans.
Add the maintainers of iTunes, the apple website, etc. Est: 20 humans.
So, for the personnel required for OS-X to exist, per revision, approximately 100 humans.
Divide that profit in two to compensate for forward-looking R&D: $825,000,000 remains for the humans to be paid. Approximately $8.25 Million per person, per revision. Assume the magnitudes are all 10 times as much as I've stated for HR. That's still a salary of $825k. I'd be happy with the $10,000 employee number of $82,500. And that's JUST for OS-X. There are more Apple employees than that, but there are also more projects going on at Apple.
And the next time you worry about the difficulty in developing an OS on a budget, take a quick look at any Linux desktop system running Gnome.
And the next time you complain about the potential for making a good profit on an operating system, look at Windows.
(By the way, I don't know if you realize it, but OS-X would very quickly get 25% to 50% market share for OS use if they released OS-Xi for arbitrary computers... not licensing to other companies, mind you, but just making it available. It doesn't require any more work on their part, you'll get the same hardware owner/homebrew owner split as you had a mac user/not-mac user, and their profit margins would bulge. Meanwhile, IF it causes a hardware dearth for them, they can see it coming for MILES, and compensate for it.
Looked at your site. It appears you run a "make money quick" scheme. As such, I don't think I quite groove with your particular flavor of ethics.
-----
Broken Capitalist (n.): In a free market economy, this is defined as a capitalist who actively seeks to perpitrate any of the following market failures: Monopoly; Moral Hazard (e.g.: adding posion to your customers' product because it's cheaper to manufacture it that way); Asymmetric Information (fraud); Externality (pollution / terrorism / failure of supporting companies); Exclusion of potentially public goods (Like the lobbying for anti-WiFi laws).
If it weren't for the broken capitalists of the world, we wouldn't have to have so many laws.
This is not a solution for inherent problems in the drag-n-drop system. It's a cool idea for an alternative method of drag-n-dropping. Stop being slashdotters and accept it for what it is.
More likely, he's old, crotchety, and makes money by being old and crotchety at things that will piss slashdotters off.
I mean, c'mon, it's all about the ad revenues. PC Mag can handle the hits from being slashdotted, and every time Dvorak posts something <i>intentionally</i> ignorant, every slashdotter in the world goes and looks.
IE: Dvorak, the man who brought me some of my favorite little DOS 7 tidbits, and earlier, bits of debug assembler, is no longer sufficiently in the loop to write sensible articles, but he still needs to live. So he makes money off of being an educated idiot for a tech mag - because techs HATE educated idiots.
Idea: The dielectric layers; they're non-conductive, ostensibly plastic, yes?
Build microchannels into the dielectric layers, and use a closed-loop forced liquid coolant to transport all the chip's generated heat to a (relatively) large flat heat-interface upon which a heat sink can be easily mounted.
Theoretically, you could even do it with an AlGaInP sort of fluid and pump it without a physical mechanism.
1) the F9-F12 buttons replaced with icon, _, [], and X (System icon, Minimize, max/restore, close). F9-F12 would be accessed by holding the "Windows" key.
2) I would like an eraserhead mouse in my keyboard, whether or not I already have a mouse. Head should be at the Enter-Shift-quote interface, while the left and right mouse click buttons should be below the spacebar/right-alt edge.
3) The "Context" and the right "Window" keys replaced with "Next-app" and "Prev-app" keys. With shift depressed, they should switch desktops (if available).
Yes, I already know I can do all of this with any good macro program in windows, or by reconfiguring KDE/Gnome in linux. But I'm thinking of possibilities for the Optimus.
You're partially right. The government has no business regulating spam.
However, I like to picket things I don't care for. That's what I consider this to be.
Take a look at the site;
It's not directing the mail at the spammers (there are too many, too diverse, and almost always spoof their mail header). It's sending them to the companies who use spam as advertising (the distinction being that they're the people who PAY the spammers).
There's a difference here.
Your standard DDoS attack is performed by zombie machines. The machine's owner has no say in his participation of the DDoS attack. On the other hand, this is a purely voluntary action; each computer using the Blue Security client is doing it under the knowledge, permission, and indeed, behest of its owner.
So is it illegal?
The client is a tool specifically designed to repeatedly and vehemently request that the offending site not send me spam. The upshot of this is that as long as the site is, you know, being a bastard, they lose money on bandwidth and CPU time, not to mention lost sales.
I, individually, am performing an action that limits the offending company's ability to succeed from a disproportionately successful venture (ie: for every 400 people whos time has been wasted, maybe 1 will buy something, and the low cost of spamming means the seller has made a profit). I am happy for that.
In my mind, it's kind of like protesting outside of a company whos ethics and policies I disagree with. It's e-picketing. And screw 'em if they don't like it.
Ad-Blocker, even with its extensive list, doesn't block google ads. And smart website designers (like Piro of Megatokyo, for example) keep their site-supporting ads in non-keyword directories (the adverts for their store is in/megagear/, keeing them happily unblocked)
In fact, I would go so far as to say that text ads are eventually going to be the only ones possible. And it's the fault of the advertising industry for annoying us to the point where the need for a product like Ad-Block is necessary.
So fuck 'em. Even if I DO eventually have to pay for, say, slashdot, I'll pay. ESPECIALLY if there's no ads.
You know, I maintain a site that dynamically builds Linux ISOs based on the Damn Small Linux distribution. It costs me $10 a month at heavy-bandwidth times.
And guess what. It contains no advertising aside from the "Make a Donation" button at the end of the directions. That pays for the site by itself.
Free content can exist with relatively low expense. The reason there's "Ad-supported" sites that work is because out of the millions of readers of a site like Slashdot, a few click on the ads. Now, I'm sure Slashdot pays more than $10 a month for bandwidth, but they still gotta be gettin' it on the cheap to pay for the volume of readership. And Slashdot, being the super-savvy types they are, use TEXT ads.
In the end, Ad-block won't mean the end of free internet. It'll mean more sites will move to non-blockable elements for their ads, like Google's or Slashdot's text ads. It'll mean website designers will be forced to go back to saving their pennies by saving their bytes (fatware webpages annoy me on principle). It'll mean higher content to page ratios.
And Bessie Smith of DoubleClick, if you're listening? Follow Google's example. Stop using every latest technology out there to annoy those you want as customers. You waste manhours in your "innovation", and you, in the end, will simply be blackballed from the internet - at the user level.
And it takes a LOT to get users, in general, to all do the same thing.
Additionally, Google ads are text - they're not blocked by the Ad-block extension.
That's right, Double-Click! You wanna stay in business? Check out what Google does...
Yes, Google... The Good Son of the interweb.
I agree...
Ad-blockers are a response to several things:
1) popups, popunders, etc. They are annoying and obtrusive. Kind of like going to a mall and having every salesman in the place come up to you at the same time shouting their pitch in your face.
2) The new pop-in flashes (you know, the ones that slide in over top your page content)
3) noisy adverts. I absolutely, positively abhor sounds in adverts.
4) Adware. Advertisers do NOT have a right to secretly install ANYTHING on my computer. Ever.
5) "Click-through" adverts. No one has a right to require a click on their product before I can see content.
Ads that are OK:
1) Banner ads, even animated.
2) 'Tween-content ads, the type where if you click for an article, you get an advert with a "skip this ad" thing. I'm used to fast forwarding through commercials.
3) Sideline ads, similar to banner.
4) In-content ads, preferably not animated.
People block all ads to avoid the annoying ones. Stick to the non-annoying ads, and you won't have a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
It does.
It crashes if you kill csrss.
Or, if like me, you accidentally kill ALL the unnecessary processes, then close process explorer. At that point, it's still windows, it still "works", but you can't LAUNCH anything.
*slaps hand against head*
Read the article. They're not turned off, they're killed. IOW, you still need to be able to fully boot.
It is, really. Everyone's all uppity about videogames causing violence, but lets face it, football's more prone to cause it. In fact, I would venture to say that adolescence causes teen violence.
1) They do not reply directly to the spammers. They first question the company that the spam links to, after checking the distribution of spam to that website versus to others (ie: the worst offenders are targeted).
2) For each user signed up, a honey-pot email account is set up. That email is seeded with your "identity" in places spammers look for addresses. It's bait.
3) For each spam recieved at a honey pot, a complaint is sent to the target company. The upshot of which is that if, like a spamming company, the server takes that honeypot account and says, "Hey, it's real!", the spammer will send out more, recieve more - and bog down the server.
I don't see why this is a bad thing; for one thing, it's the natural evolution based on an environment that contains such systems.
A system that uses "real" addresses to send more "business mail". Etiquette dictates that they send only one unless active business is taking place. Etiquette evolves for a reason. Anyways, these systems, called "spammers" don't take the hint, being mostly automated anyway.
In society, breaking etiquitte is annoying, and if continuous, is dealt with by the society. In human civilization, this is done by the public appointing authority, and insisting that to keep this authority, they take care of the etiquette-breakers. There is no such valid authority on the internet. I suggest there never has to be.
Instead, organizations like this develop as community projects. They can be professional and efficient, because they're also mostly automated, but programmed by those who have a very specific target and intent.
Best way to deal with spammers? Exploit a simple cause-effect relationship between incoming form data and outgoing mail, but never initiate contact. Bait? Sure, but don't initiate. Let them hang themselves.
Which is the point, really. Spammers who don't make it to the top of the list aren't targetted. Spammers who actually remove you from the sender list aren't targetted.
Additionally, the link between spam-collection and target-picking is not automated. It's done by the maintainers of the site, who first ASK the company in question to change their advertising methods away from spam.
As for spoofing your enemy's company, I'm sure they have a way of dealing with that; because there's human interaction before target-picking, these sorts of things can be dealt with.
"Good"
A good end-user
You can give me all the excuses you want, but it comes down to this - Macs cost so much more because they:
1) use chips that regularly cost several hundered dollars more than equivalently powered end-user chips, even at warehouse pricing (for high end PCs),
2) Apple spends an awful lot of money developing new manufacturing techniques for physical "pretty",
3) Apple benefits from the inherent elitism of their users, allowing them to charge more for the hardware with no questions asked, while claiming that any price drop is a "discount".
4) Apple spends more money on developing specialized hardware than is strictly required. In reality, a custom BIOS is all that's needed to lock the OS against all but the most dedicated geeks from arbitrary platform-compatible hardware, but Apple gets a bit more tenacious about this and it affects their R&D costs in a Bad Way.
>_> ok, at $130 a pop, and given that it would take maybe $20 a pop to package and ship OS-X, that's $110 profit/copy. Apple has something like 6% market share. Assuming that's of all humans living in (just) the US (since it's relatively safe to say that there are a similar number of computers as people), and rough it out to 250,000,000 people in the US, that' 15,000,000 copies of OS-X per revision. Sum estimated return per revision of OS-X: $1,650,000,000 A good development team consists of approximately 5 persons per major project. OS-X contains (primarily) the Mach Kernel, the Quartz Window server, the Cocoa scripting API, the Aqua Window manager, and a number of end-user GUI Apps that generally get written over top of existing open source projects, and maintained only when bugs are reported. Call it 50 humans. Add administrative support, 25 humans. Add Steve Jobs (we'll pay him as much as) 5 humans. Add the maintainers of iTunes, the apple website, etc. Est: 20 humans. So, for the personnel required for OS-X to exist, per revision, approximately 100 humans. Divide that profit in two to compensate for forward-looking R&D: $825,000,000 remains for the humans to be paid. Approximately $8.25 Million per person, per revision. Assume the magnitudes are all 10 times as much as I've stated for HR. That's still a salary of $825k. I'd be happy with the $10,000 employee number of $82,500. And that's JUST for OS-X. There are more Apple employees than that, but there are also more projects going on at Apple. And the next time you worry about the difficulty in developing an OS on a budget, take a quick look at any Linux desktop system running Gnome. And the next time you complain about the potential for making a good profit on an operating system, look at Windows. (By the way, I don't know if you realize it, but OS-X would very quickly get 25% to 50% market share for OS use if they released OS-Xi for arbitrary computers... not licensing to other companies, mind you, but just making it available. It doesn't require any more work on their part, you'll get the same hardware owner/homebrew owner split as you had a mac user/not-mac user, and their profit margins would bulge. Meanwhile, IF it causes a hardware dearth for them, they can see it coming for MILES, and compensate for it.
Looked at your site. It appears you run a "make money quick" scheme. As such, I don't think I quite groove with your particular flavor of ethics.
-----
Broken Capitalist (n.): In a free market economy, this is defined as a capitalist who actively seeks to perpitrate any of the following market failures: Monopoly; Moral Hazard (e.g.: adding posion to your customers' product because it's cheaper to manufacture it that way); Asymmetric Information (fraud); Externality (pollution / terrorism / failure of supporting companies); Exclusion of potentially public goods (Like the lobbying for anti-WiFi laws).
If it weren't for the broken capitalists of the world, we wouldn't have to have so many laws.
This is not a solution for inherent problems in the drag-n-drop system. It's a cool idea for an alternative method of drag-n-dropping. Stop being slashdotters and accept it for what it is.
But still, admit it, that's SO cool. I'll bet OS X does it first.
More likely, he's old, crotchety, and makes money by being old and crotchety at things that will piss slashdotters off.
I mean, c'mon, it's all about the ad revenues. PC Mag can handle the hits from being slashdotted, and every time Dvorak posts something <i>intentionally</i> ignorant, every slashdotter in the world goes and looks.
IE: Dvorak, the man who brought me some of my favorite little DOS 7 tidbits, and earlier, bits of debug assembler, is no longer sufficiently in the loop to write sensible articles, but he still needs to live. So he makes money off of being an educated idiot for a tech mag - because techs HATE educated idiots.
Or better. Next Dvorak article, coral cache it and link only that, with a non-linked, text URL to the original article.
Idea: The dielectric layers; they're non-conductive, ostensibly plastic, yes?
Build microchannels into the dielectric layers, and use a closed-loop forced liquid coolant to transport all the chip's generated heat to a (relatively) large flat heat-interface upon which a heat sink can be easily mounted.
Theoretically, you could even do it with an AlGaInP sort of fluid and pump it without a physical mechanism.
How's that for thinking?
1) the F9-F12 buttons replaced with icon, _, [], and X (System icon, Minimize, max/restore, close). F9-F12 would be accessed by holding the "Windows" key. 2) I would like an eraserhead mouse in my keyboard, whether or not I already have a mouse. Head should be at the Enter-Shift-quote interface, while the left and right mouse click buttons should be below the spacebar/right-alt edge. 3) The "Context" and the right "Window" keys replaced with "Next-app" and "Prev-app" keys. With shift depressed, they should switch desktops (if available). Yes, I already know I can do all of this with any good macro program in windows, or by reconfiguring KDE/Gnome in linux. But I'm thinking of possibilities for the Optimus.
You're partially right. The government has no business regulating spam. However, I like to picket things I don't care for. That's what I consider this to be.
Take a look at the site; It's not directing the mail at the spammers (there are too many, too diverse, and almost always spoof their mail header). It's sending them to the companies who use spam as advertising (the distinction being that they're the people who PAY the spammers).
There's a difference here. Your standard DDoS attack is performed by zombie machines. The machine's owner has no say in his participation of the DDoS attack. On the other hand, this is a purely voluntary action; each computer using the Blue Security client is doing it under the knowledge, permission, and indeed, behest of its owner. So is it illegal? The client is a tool specifically designed to repeatedly and vehemently request that the offending site not send me spam. The upshot of this is that as long as the site is, you know, being a bastard, they lose money on bandwidth and CPU time, not to mention lost sales. I, individually, am performing an action that limits the offending company's ability to succeed from a disproportionately successful venture (ie: for every 400 people whos time has been wasted, maybe 1 will buy something, and the low cost of spamming means the seller has made a profit). I am happy for that. In my mind, it's kind of like protesting outside of a company whos ethics and policies I disagree with. It's e-picketing. And screw 'em if they don't like it.
Weird. I have a Dell that's lasted me at least seven years.
'Course, I know what I'm doing when I keep it nice and fresh.
And I'm still amazed at what a 500MHz machine can do.
That's actually the best marketing idea I've ever heard (and most of 'em are pretty derned bad).
Now, lets see if we can get this to happen with product development.
I think I might go revive my blog now... don't wanna be left out of the demographic.
Are we talking a TV-style 90-second ad, or an annoying Flash ad? 'cos the annoying flash ad wouldn't work.
Ad-Blocker, even with its extensive list, doesn't block google ads. And smart website designers (like Piro of Megatokyo, for example) keep their site-supporting ads in non-keyword directories (the adverts for their store is in /megagear/, keeing them happily unblocked)
In fact, I would go so far as to say that text ads are eventually going to be the only ones possible. And it's the fault of the advertising industry for annoying us to the point where the need for a product like Ad-Block is necessary.
So fuck 'em. Even if I DO eventually have to pay for, say, slashdot, I'll pay. ESPECIALLY if there's no ads.
mrrr?
You're funny.
You know, I maintain a site that dynamically builds Linux ISOs based on the Damn Small Linux distribution. It costs me $10 a month at heavy-bandwidth times.
And guess what. It contains no advertising aside from the "Make a Donation" button at the end of the directions. That pays for the site by itself.
Free content can exist with relatively low expense. The reason there's "Ad-supported" sites that work is because out of the millions of readers of a site like Slashdot, a few click on the ads. Now, I'm sure Slashdot pays more than $10 a month for bandwidth, but they still gotta be gettin' it on the cheap to pay for the volume of readership. And Slashdot, being the super-savvy types they are, use TEXT ads.
In the end, Ad-block won't mean the end of free internet. It'll mean more sites will move to non-blockable elements for their ads, like Google's or Slashdot's text ads. It'll mean website designers will be forced to go back to saving their pennies by saving their bytes (fatware webpages annoy me on principle). It'll mean higher content to page ratios.
And Bessie Smith of DoubleClick, if you're listening? Follow Google's example. Stop using every latest technology out there to annoy those you want as customers. You waste manhours in your "innovation", and you, in the end, will simply be blackballed from the internet - at the user level.
And it takes a LOT to get users, in general, to all do the same thing.
Additionally, Google ads are text - they're not blocked by the Ad-block extension. That's right, Double-Click! You wanna stay in business? Check out what Google does... Yes, Google... The Good Son of the interweb.
I agree... Ad-blockers are a response to several things: 1) popups, popunders, etc. They are annoying and obtrusive. Kind of like going to a mall and having every salesman in the place come up to you at the same time shouting their pitch in your face. 2) The new pop-in flashes (you know, the ones that slide in over top your page content) 3) noisy adverts. I absolutely, positively abhor sounds in adverts. 4) Adware. Advertisers do NOT have a right to secretly install ANYTHING on my computer. Ever. 5) "Click-through" adverts. No one has a right to require a click on their product before I can see content. Ads that are OK: 1) Banner ads, even animated. 2) 'Tween-content ads, the type where if you click for an article, you get an advert with a "skip this ad" thing. I'm used to fast forwarding through commercials. 3) Sideline ads, similar to banner. 4) In-content ads, preferably not animated. People block all ads to avoid the annoying ones. Stick to the non-annoying ads, and you won't have a problem.