1. fax sender pays for phone call to receiver's device (local calls are NOT free everywhere in the world, USA peeps note)
2. receiver can use electronic fax receiving so no treeware for which to pay; just a large disk ^_^
Why not reverse the model--you pay the send the mail and then the reciever can choose to reimburse you.
Isn't that the current spam model - Penis enlargement pills, etc supplier PAYS spammer to send mail and then gets reimbursed when moron BUYS his/her product.
For months, SCO has encouraged users to take advantage of the promotional price, but there haven't been many takers.
"We haven't published the exact number yet," McBride said. "It's not in the dozens, but it's, you know, we've had some that have started to sign up."
By only stating "started to sign up", he is avoiding stating that any have actually completed and paid.
As soon as SCO publishes any number greater than zero that have paid, they open themselves up for copyright infringement by other Linux contributors - they have violated the GPL (by imposing additional conditions), removing the extra privileges given by the licence and restoring just Copyright control (with no permission to redistribute).
1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of:
assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and
assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "name@subdomain.domain;"
Just like (from RFC 1034):
HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA is represented as a domain name by HOSTMASTER.SRI-NIC.ARPA. An appreciation for the reasons behind this design also must take into account the scheme for mail exchanges [RFC-974].
I think I've found the novelty in it - it assigns the domain and extracts the email address from it whereas RFC 1034 does it the other way round...
I agree, the USPTO should be held accountable for compensation for people sued under their granted patents if prior art is easily shown (that the patent applicant should have found, if not them); taking into account the age of the prior art?
Also, patent applicants should also be expected to search, and the USPTO should equally have recourse to compensation to people who don't reaseach their application properly (how long did it take to find RFC 1034 once this broke onto/.)? Hopefully this would cut down on the frivilous patent applications were are now getting [approved].
I vaguely remember an article of years ago about a spray made by Xreox(?) that you put on a document to make it uncopyable - under normal lighting it was clear, but under the bright light of a photocopier it went opaque. We now have a way to make images uncopyable - just include the "constellation" of 5 circles?
Just imagine what would happen if someone had it tattooed on their bottom at the next Christmas party - explain that to the copier repair man...
the circle patter also encodes the issuing bank
So it looks like the Euro notes may be possibly country encoded - just not so obviously.
My first instinct on seeing any figures that prove X is better than Y is to get out my copy of "How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff (ISBN 0-14-021300-7) and run through Ch 10 - How to Talk Back to a Statistic:
a - Who Says So?
b - How Does He Know?
c - What's Missing?
d - Did Somebody Change the Subject?
e - Does It Make Sense?
They'd probably get away with it based on some obscure entrapment law - they thought they were spamming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hemailing you, by all appearances, but you were deliberately putting it to a fax machine. Unless you put it in the username (eg fax.machine@your.domain) and your mail server on the gateway warned that it was a email-fax gateway and all input was expected to be a fax? If I choose to ignore the 40mph signs, or if I don't see them (must be driving without due care and attention, or with defective eyesight...), that's no excuse for me driving at 50mph in the 40mph area.
Am I missing something? Does old-fashoned faxing have a place in the modern society?
Yes, because it puts much more of the burden of the cost of the fax on the sender: they may use up your consummables (unless you have a fax-modem attached to a computer which receives and displays faxes digitally [and a large HD]), but they also [generally] have to pay to phone you. Unlike email whereby the junk mailers use other people's machines without their permission.
Plus, with dialer identification at the recipient's end, they could block any fax that doesn't identify the sender's phone number (assuming facility existed in the hardware/software) - to forge this would require cracking the phone company's computers.
Faxing is like a peer-to-peer network: you connect directly to the recipient for the delivery (as it leaves your machine, it arrives at their's) and they know who you are, unlike email in which you dump the whole message to the courier and can [fairly] easily forge the origins of it.
piloting was the problem with Titanic not construction.
Not entirely...according to my info (The World's Greatest Mistakes, ISBN 0 7064 1128 5) about the disaster, the 5th bulkhead was too short and when the bows dipped (due to the front, gashed, compartments flooding), water flowed over the top into the next "watertight" compartment, causing the bows to dip more, causing water to flow over the next not-high-enough bulkhead, etc.
Can anyone else confirm/deny this?
Anyway, what I found interesting in the article was this:
The Copyright Act provides an important definition... of "computer programs", which are defined as:
"a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."
The Windows program seems to generate a non-safe and secure computing environment (look at the viruses, worms, trojaned machines, etc that are causing havoc, and have been for years) which according to M$ isn't it's desired result. Therefore, by this definition, either Windows isn't a computer program, or this is the desired result of Micro$oft...
"Window - something out of which you jump when the power fails and you loose all your work" - (roughly) Apple ][ manual glossary
See, if a computer program somehow fucks this up, and ends up flying right towards the mountain instead of away from it, the pilots would realize that this *can't* be right but a computer wouldn't.
The coach I drive has a GPS navigation system in it. It is supposed to aid the driver. However, it often gets lost as to where I am, and which way I'm pointing. [I've realised that it assumes that you're going to drive down roads and not along access roads it doesn't know about, and so assumes the GPS must be in error and puts you on the road it thinks you are travelling along. Which will the plane obey?]
more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base
If SCO is right and if they've been copied verbatim, then they MUST include the SCO copyright header and NO Linux/GPL header. The 65+ so identified files must thus be easily recognised. If they can't be found, then they can't be copied verbatim (unless, of course, this is some meaning of the word verbatim ["in exactly the same words as were used originally" - that's verbatim (sic) from my Concise Oxford Dictionary] of which I am unaware), and SCO must be wrong. QED.
If they do include the GPL header, then their Unix code base copies MUST also include the GPL header and they've just shown that they've included GPL code into closed, propietry, code, contrary to the GPL licence - a clear case of Copyright violation.
If they meant code contained in those files, they should have said so. In which case we're now getting into the "even though that's what I said, that's not what I meant". Which is a clear case of misrepresenting the facts and leads us to not trust anything they say...not that we did anyway...
Hey, if the RIAA thinks that they can sue all 60,000,00 of us file sharers, surely we can hunt down and exterminate a few hundred small time spammers!!
In his article, he asks why the regions are so set up (eg Japan is part of Europe, etc). I dunno, but perhaps it is the Hollywood film release schedule: Region 1 (US), followed by Region 2 (UK, Europe, etc), followed by Region 3, etc? Or is that just a too simplistic idea of the region number?
If the film it rated as PG-13, I'm sure it can be pretty much assumed that much of the intended audience of the film is going to be PG-13 and just over, in particular in the PG-13 to R band. So to include a preview for a R rated film, seems a bit silly: the majority of the intended audience can't see it, even if the preview is PG-13 rated.
I've got one DVD that is rated at 15; however, the actual film itself is rated at 12 - why? Because it contains a[n exclusive] preview of a 15 rated film. "To comply with the Video Recordings Act 1984, 15 is the overriding certificate for this DVD." So, as long as I can avoid showing the preview to 12-14 years olds, they can still watch the film?
What is most bizarre is that some DVDs I have have duel BBFC & IRL certifications and they vary: 12 UK = 15 IRL, 15 UK = 12 IRL, PG UK = 15 IRL, etc.
They imported grey Levi's (from the eastern market, if I remember correctly) as they were cheaper than the black (officially UK distributed) Levi's. They could then sell the real garment for less (than the UK distributed RRP) to the British consumers. Levi's have still got their sales, possibly more so as some British consumers were willing to pay the lower prices and so buy the jeans - we're not willing to pay more, it's just that the market will hold it: if prices were cheaper, I'd be more willing to buy. But then again, it's quite legal for me to visit the US/Asia, but a pair of jeans and not have to worry that they're be unwareable in the UK.
I used to work for a company that had several trading arms (in the UK), selling the same stock out of the same warehouse at different prices. The cheapest trading arm worked on the basis of stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap (small profit on large quantity sold), whereas the dearest trading arm worked on the basis of quality [of service] over quantity (large profit on small quantity sold). The consumer had choice(? ^_^)
A simple solution: distribute a region-less bare-bones version (like some the regionalised disks I have: film only, no extras), at a sensible, uniform, price and then regionalised 'special edition' versions with extras that cost more - any feature duplicated across regions should cost proportionally more in each region (likelihood - zero).
VHS video tapes were regionalise but no-one seemed to notice/mind: US - formatted NTSC, UK - formatted PAL, France - Formatted SECAM, etc.
It was the regionalisation, and the ridiculuous cost difference between VHS & DVD (for same content, tho' DVDs are much cheaper to produce - a DVD has to have enuff justification in the extras to support the extra cost before I will consider it) that held up my purchase of a DVD player. They player I have is regionalised, but can be de-regionalised if I ever get a DVD that is differently regionalised - I just can't be bothered at the moment, plus there aren't any DVDs outside my region that I wanna watch [yet].
I'm sure it'd be much cheaper for the film industry to scrap the regionalisation of DVDs, or to release in all regions at the same time, than to chase the pirates and the losses incurred because those who can't buy it are downloading [pirated] copies. It looks like their attempt at profiteering may have just back-fired.
M$ probably ARE following the designers' of the Titanic, along with their builders.
From my memory [of reading about the Titanic disaster - references I can't find at the moment], the Titanic could easily survive a gash through the first 4 of the 14 watertight compartments; however, the gash reached into the 5th. This shouldn't have been too much of a problem, but with the first 4 compartments flooded, the bows dipped; however, for some obscure reason, the 5th bulkhead wasn't as tall. As the bows dipped, the water then flowed over the top into the 6th compartment; followed by more dipping and more overflowing...
Is IE the 5th compartment/bulkhead of Windoze?
Re:How bothersome is spam for most slashdotters?
on
The Life of a Spammer
·
· Score: 0
and the third one spam-only, that I only check when I expect a registration confirmation to come from some site I register at.
That may stop you from seeing it, but it still has to traverse the i/net, bouncing from relay to relay until it arrives at your ISP, costing each of them a part of the connection bandwidth, and, ultimately you. Using an SEP [Somebody Else's Problem] field is an excellent way of making problems disappear (from you), until they also use one, etc; then you get to the problem of pyramid marketing schemes: saturation and they fall over.
I've now got a spam-only e-addr (well it was my e-addr until harvested and clogged up with spam - in fact all the spam I get arrives at this one e-addr), but it doesn't solve the problem of spam: if any of my current e-addr's get compromised and spammed I'll have to stop using that and end up with 2 dead accts that would collect 80+ emails, totalling around 250Kb+, each per day (40% of which [this month so far] comes spamvertising sites hosted by wanadoo.fr).
Spam filtering is like those councils who block up rat-runs, only for motorists to find another rat-run. They don't deal with the original problem: why motorists go for rat-runs in the first place (cos major through route is stuffed) and solve that (improve traffic flow along major route - which, in the long run, may actually be cheaper than blocking, and re-blocking rat-runs). Similarly spam: as SMTP was designed in trust days, but trust has now been broken, so replace it with something that doesn't need trust [but authentication] (like ssh has replaced telnet).
It's not that hard to make up a trademark that does roll off the tongue and does not exist in the dictionary (yet): Google
Google was named (AFAIK) after googol (= 10^100) with a slight change of spelling, but it's probably too close for someone's liking to insist it can't be trademarked.
Hollllly shit. MS needs to patch this like...two weeks ago.
Awww, stop worrying, M$ are excellent at releasing patches - much better than the OSS community; average 2 days from notification to patch arriving, innit? 8-)
Slashdot Mirror
A fax the recipient pays for.
Surely:
1. fax sender pays for phone call to receiver's device (local calls are NOT free everywhere in the world, USA peeps note)
2. receiver can use electronic fax receiving so no treeware for which to pay; just a large disk ^_^
Why not reverse the model--you pay the send the mail and then the reciever can choose to reimburse you.
Isn't that the current spam model - Penis enlargement pills, etc supplier PAYS spammer to send mail and then gets reimbursed when moron BUYS his/her product.
As soon as SCO publishes any number greater than zero that have paid, they open themselves up for copyright infringement by other Linux contributors - they have violated the GPL (by imposing additional conditions), removing the extra privileges given by the licence and restoring just Copyright control (with no permission to redistribute).
1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of:
/.)? Hopefully this would cut down on the frivilous patent applications were are now getting [approved].
assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and
assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "name@subdomain.domain;"
Just like (from RFC 1034):
HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA is represented as a domain name by HOSTMASTER.SRI-NIC.ARPA. An appreciation for the reasons behind this design also must take into account the scheme for mail exchanges [RFC-974].
I think I've found the novelty in it - it assigns the domain and extracts the email address from it whereas RFC 1034 does it the other way round...
I agree, the USPTO should be held accountable for compensation for people sued under their granted patents if prior art is easily shown (that the patent applicant should have found, if not them); taking into account the age of the prior art?
Also, patent applicants should also be expected to search, and the USPTO should equally have recourse to compensation to people who don't reaseach their application properly (how long did it take to find RFC 1034 once this broke onto
I vaguely remember an article of years ago about a spray made by Xreox(?) that you put on a document to make it uncopyable - under normal lighting it was clear, but under the bright light of a photocopier it went opaque. We now have a way to make images uncopyable - just include the "constellation" of 5 circles?
Just imagine what would happen if someone had it tattooed on their bottom at the next Christmas party - explain that to the copier repair man...
the circle patter also encodes the issuing bank
So it looks like the Euro notes may be possibly country encoded - just not so obviously.
My first instinct on seeing any figures that prove X is better than Y is to get out my copy of "How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff (ISBN 0-14-021300-7) and run through Ch 10 - How to Talk Back to a Statistic:
a - Who Says So?
b - How Does He Know?
c - What's Missing?
d - Did Somebody Change the Subject?
e - Does It Make Sense?
A must read for all.
It's something up with which I will not put!
They'd probably get away with it based on some obscure entrapment law - they thought they were spamming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hemailing you, by all appearances, but you were deliberately putting it to a fax machine. Unless you put it in the username (eg fax.machine@your.domain) and your mail server on the gateway warned that it was a email-fax gateway and all input was expected to be a fax? If I choose to ignore the 40mph signs, or if I don't see them (must be driving without due care and attention, or with defective eyesight...), that's no excuse for me driving at 50mph in the 40mph area.
Am I missing something? Does old-fashoned faxing have a place in the modern society?
Yes, because it puts much more of the burden of the cost of the fax on the sender: they may use up your consummables (unless you have a fax-modem attached to a computer which receives and displays faxes digitally [and a large HD]), but they also [generally] have to pay to phone you. Unlike email whereby the junk mailers use other people's machines without their permission.
Plus, with dialer identification at the recipient's end, they could block any fax that doesn't identify the sender's phone number (assuming facility existed in the hardware/software) - to forge this would require cracking the phone company's computers.
Faxing is like a peer-to-peer network: you connect directly to the recipient for the delivery (as it leaves your machine, it arrives at their's) and they know who you are, unlike email in which you dump the whole message to the courier and can [fairly] easily forge the origins of it.
I always thought it was C++
The reason year 2000 was thought to be the start of the 3rd millennium AD, whereas actually the year 2001 was.
Or to put it another way, all the world starts counting from one, except when computers/round figures are involved.
piloting was the problem with Titanic not construction.
... of "computer programs", which are defined as:
Not entirely...according to my info (The World's Greatest Mistakes, ISBN 0 7064 1128 5) about the disaster, the 5th bulkhead was too short and when the bows dipped (due to the front, gashed, compartments flooding), water flowed over the top into the next "watertight" compartment, causing the bows to dip more, causing water to flow over the next not-high-enough bulkhead, etc.
Can anyone else confirm/deny this?
Anyway, what I found interesting in the article was this:
The Copyright Act provides an important definition
"a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."
The Windows program seems to generate a non-safe and secure computing environment (look at the viruses, worms, trojaned machines, etc that are causing havoc, and have been for years) which according to M$ isn't it's desired result. Therefore, by this definition, either Windows isn't a computer program, or this is the desired result of Micro$oft...
"Window - something out of which you jump when the power fails and you loose all your work" - (roughly) Apple ][ manual glossary
See, if a computer program somehow fucks this up, and ends up flying right towards the mountain instead of away from it, the pilots would realize that this *can't* be right but a computer wouldn't.
The coach I drive has a GPS navigation system in it. It is supposed to aid the driver. However, it often gets lost as to where I am, and which way I'm pointing. [I've realised that it assumes that you're going to drive down roads and not along access roads it doesn't know about, and so assumes the GPS must be in error and puts you on the road it thinks you are travelling along. Which will the plane obey?]
more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base
If SCO is right and if they've been copied verbatim, then they MUST include the SCO copyright header and NO Linux/GPL header. The 65+ so identified files must thus be easily recognised. If they can't be found, then they can't be copied verbatim (unless, of course, this is some meaning of the word verbatim ["in exactly the same words as were used originally" - that's verbatim (sic) from my Concise Oxford Dictionary] of which I am unaware), and SCO must be wrong. QED.
If they do include the GPL header, then their Unix code base copies MUST also include the GPL header and they've just shown that they've included GPL code into closed, propietry, code, contrary to the GPL licence - a clear case of Copyright violation.
If they meant code contained in those files, they should have said so. In which case we're now getting into the "even though that's what I said, that's not what I meant". Which is a clear case of misrepresenting the facts and leads us to not trust anything they say...not that we did anyway...
They are suing because of the effect of spam on MSN
Brilliant - write the OS that can he hijacked and then sue those who hijack it...isn't that entrapment?
Hey, if the RIAA thinks that they can sue all 60,000,00 of us file sharers, surely we can hunt down and exterminate a few hundred small time spammers!!
Why don't we just get the RIAA to do it for us?
In his article, he asks why the regions are so set up (eg Japan is part of Europe, etc). I dunno, but perhaps it is the Hollywood film release schedule: Region 1 (US), followed by Region 2 (UK, Europe, etc), followed by Region 3, etc? Or is that just a too simplistic idea of the region number?
If the film it rated as PG-13, I'm sure it can be pretty much assumed that much of the intended audience of the film is going to be PG-13 and just over, in particular in the PG-13 to R band. So to include a preview for a R rated film, seems a bit silly: the majority of the intended audience can't see it, even if the preview is PG-13 rated.
I've got one DVD that is rated at 15; however, the actual film itself is rated at 12 - why? Because it contains a[n exclusive] preview of a 15 rated film. "To comply with the Video Recordings Act 1984, 15 is the overriding certificate for this DVD." So, as long as I can avoid showing the preview to 12-14 years olds, they can still watch the film?
What is most bizarre is that some DVDs I have have duel BBFC & IRL certifications and they vary: 12 UK = 15 IRL, 15 UK = 12 IRL, PG UK = 15 IRL, etc.
Enter Tesco's, or was it Asda?
They imported grey Levi's (from the eastern market, if I remember correctly) as they were cheaper than the black (officially UK distributed) Levi's. They could then sell the real garment for less (than the UK distributed RRP) to the British consumers. Levi's have still got their sales, possibly more so as some British consumers were willing to pay the lower prices and so buy the jeans - we're not willing to pay more, it's just that the market will hold it: if prices were cheaper, I'd be more willing to buy. But then again, it's quite legal for me to visit the US/Asia, but a pair of jeans and not have to worry that they're be unwareable in the UK.
I used to work for a company that had several trading arms (in the UK), selling the same stock out of the same warehouse at different prices. The cheapest trading arm worked on the basis of stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap (small profit on large quantity sold), whereas the dearest trading arm worked on the basis of quality [of service] over quantity (large profit on small quantity sold). The consumer had choice(? ^_^)
A simple solution: distribute a region-less bare-bones version (like some the regionalised disks I have: film only, no extras), at a sensible, uniform, price and then regionalised 'special edition' versions with extras that cost more - any feature duplicated across regions should cost proportionally more in each region (likelihood - zero).
VHS video tapes were regionalise but no-one seemed to notice/mind: US - formatted NTSC, UK - formatted PAL, France - Formatted SECAM, etc.
It was the regionalisation, and the ridiculuous cost difference between VHS & DVD (for same content, tho' DVDs are much cheaper to produce - a DVD has to have enuff justification in the extras to support the extra cost before I will consider it) that held up my purchase of a DVD player. They player I have is regionalised, but can be de-regionalised if I ever get a DVD that is differently regionalised - I just can't be bothered at the moment, plus there aren't any DVDs outside my region that I wanna watch [yet].
I'm sure it'd be much cheaper for the film industry to scrap the regionalisation of DVDs, or to release in all regions at the same time, than to chase the pirates and the losses incurred because those who can't buy it are downloading [pirated] copies. It looks like their attempt at profiteering may have just back-fired.
If you can't beat them, don't join them, sue em
M$ probably ARE following the designers' of the Titanic, along with their builders.
From my memory [of reading about the Titanic disaster - references I can't find at the moment], the Titanic could easily survive a gash through the first 4 of the 14 watertight compartments; however, the gash reached into the 5th. This shouldn't have been too much of a problem, but with the first 4 compartments flooded, the bows dipped; however, for some obscure reason, the 5th bulkhead wasn't as tall. As the bows dipped, the water then flowed over the top into the 6th compartment; followed by more dipping and more overflowing...
Is IE the 5th compartment/bulkhead of Windoze?
and the third one spam-only, that I only check when I expect a registration confirmation to come from some site I register at.
That may stop you from seeing it, but it still has to traverse the i/net, bouncing from relay to relay until it arrives at your ISP, costing each of them a part of the connection bandwidth, and, ultimately you. Using an SEP [Somebody Else's Problem] field is an excellent way of making problems disappear (from you), until they also use one, etc; then you get to the problem of pyramid marketing schemes: saturation and they fall over.
I've now got a spam-only e-addr (well it was my e-addr until harvested and clogged up with spam - in fact all the spam I get arrives at this one e-addr), but it doesn't solve the problem of spam: if any of my current e-addr's get compromised and spammed I'll have to stop using that and end up with 2 dead accts that would collect 80+ emails, totalling around 250Kb+, each per day (40% of which [this month so far] comes spamvertising sites hosted by wanadoo.fr).
Spam filtering is like those councils who block up rat-runs, only for motorists to find another rat-run. They don't deal with the original problem: why motorists go for rat-runs in the first place (cos major through route is stuffed) and solve that (improve traffic flow along major route - which, in the long run, may actually be cheaper than blocking, and re-blocking rat-runs). Similarly spam: as SMTP was designed in trust days, but trust has now been broken, so replace it with something that doesn't need trust [but authentication] (like ssh has replaced telnet).
It's not that hard to make up a trademark that does roll off the tongue and does not exist in the dictionary (yet): Google
Google was named (AFAIK) after googol (= 10^100) with a slight change of spelling, but it's probably too close for someone's liking to insist it can't be trademarked.
Hollllly shit. MS needs to patch this like...two weeks ago.
Awww, stop worrying, M$ are excellent at releasing patches - much better than the OSS community; average 2 days from notification to patch arriving, innit? 8-)
640 laws ought to be enough for anybody.
God managed it in 10, as displayed at the Supreme Court, but illegal(?) to display in schools....