I will never again download anything from download.com without thoroughly researching it, since most of what they have now is full of the nastiest kind of spyware/adware/crapware. It will be very hard to fight the spyware battle when some of the organizations in the computer industry that are thought of as reputable end up pushing out spyware to their users.
Meal service isn't all that important to me. I'd just like there to be one airline where the plane arrives ON TIME! At least a 90% ontime rating, anyway. Some weather delays are inevitable, but the current situation is killing domestic aviation. Business travelers will drive if possible because they know that the flight will take about as long once they account for the flight delays and the getting to the airport 3 hours in advance to wait in line for airport insecurity.
Exactly. If the dude wants a level playing field by applying the indecency standards, we would then have to continue making it level by requiring listeners to subscribe to his station. How many people would be willing to pay and how much revenue would he make compared to the traditional model of ad sales? Sounds like he either didn't think this one through or he was just hoping he could trick the FCC into giving broadcast radio an unfair advantage by placing unconstitutional speech restrictions on a private network.
The publicity is mainly what they are looking for. Like people say "you can't buy this kind of publicity". It's an effective way to demonize music downloading of all kinds, which is their main goal. They want non-computer literate types to think it is always illegal to download music, therefore they will go to the mall and spend $19.99 on the newest pop crap. But people are slowly starting to wake up to what's going on. Does the music cartel have a backup plan for the inevitable loss of the old way of doing business?
I think this speaks volumes about the level of technical understanding that current SCO executives have. They seem completely unaware that they are distributing what they claim to be illegal, having only pulled it from their website but not the FTP site. I guess most PHBs haven't ever heard of FTP, much less know how to use it.
I don't think it will affect most people who would hear it, other than making them curious for a brief second. Most lyrics in Christmas music have very little meaning or connection to people, since they are from another era. When was the last time you roasted chestnuts on an open fire? Have you ever rode in a one horse open sleigh? Or even owned a pair of sleighbells other than for decoration? Neither has anyone else for almost the last 100 years. Kids today don't even know what these things are, so they certainly won't be upset if Christmas classics are changed around a bit.
Powering many common devices using USB, Ethernet, or other low voltage sources makes a lot of sense. Many devices that are in widespread use such as battery chargers, small lights, telephones, inkjet printers, do not need the full 120/240 volts to operate. Low voltage power could be a lot more convenient in many cases, since a standard electrical outlet and the transformer plug would not be required.
You didn't run 120 VAC through those cables did you? I'm guessing you used lower voltage that was just enough to power the WAPs. Does this pose any problems regarding electrical code compliance?
Then you switch to Trend Micro, which is what my company did when their network got taken down by a virus even with Norton "protection" running. Symantec has done nothing to Norton products other than run them into the ground. How much longer will this company be able to keep running on fumes? In this case, the fumes are the reputation of the once-great Norton product line. These tools (Internet Seecurity and Anti-Virus) are perfect examples of what happens when technical design decisions are made by MBA and PHB types.
There is a clear distinction between public and private space. In public, the government can put up cameras because it is a public space and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In private space, only the property owner or a person designated by the owner can put up a camera. They are well within their rights to do this, provided they don't put a camera in an area where an individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a restroom stall. The police cannot put a camera in a private space, or aim a camera into a private space, without a warrant. I realize you value your privacy, but keep in mind that public places are by definition not private, and that the government won't be putting cameras in private spaces anytime soon, as it would pretty much require the constitution to be gutted first.
Actually I don't think they will. Financial houses are notoriously cheap when it comes to operations that the customers don't directly see, like IT. Just ask anyone who has worked in a bank IT group. They will be very very resentful of some leech's attempt to insert themselves into the money stream. These patent trolls have bitten off more than they can chew on this one. I expect to see this group of patents defeated, especially with the huge amount of prior art since electronic trading is not a new technology by any means.
The only way to really get rid of spammers, and this includes "legitimate" spammers like our friend Scotty, is for the feds to get serious about prosecuting them. And I don't mean filing charges based on some kooky new anti-spam law that is full of loopholes. Take them down like they did Al Capone. Start investigating known spammers for all different kinds of law violations, like tax law, interstate commerce law, licensing regulations (do those online pharmacies that have operations in the US have proper licenses?) and other general business regulations. I'll be willing to bet that almost all spammers are breaking a law in some way. Find that, shut them down, and others will get the hint. Sure, some people will continue to do it, but the volume of spam will decrease as the overall cost of sending spam increases.
Salon is a perfect example of a "media" company that just does not understand the internet and is trying to turn it into cable TV. Nobody wants full-screen audio/video ads, like you would see on TV. All it does is annoy the user and fail to generate interest in the product being advertised. When you see one of these, do you click through to the advertiser's site, or tap your foot until it is over? I would guess the overall success rate (ad views vs. sales) is dismal, or at the very least no more effective than relevant text ads. The so-called creative types in marketing departments need to find an advertising medium for the internet that actually works instead of just pissing off the user which is all that popups, flash ads and screen covering ads manage to do. As another example of a truly annoying web experience, try visiting chicagotribune.com without a pop-up blocker.
Unfortunately, many advertisers work this way. I get an offer in the mail for a Chase Visa card at least once a week. You would think that they would figure out that if I didn't sign up the first 50 times they sent something, I would still be unlikely to do so the 51st time. They could save some postage and just stop sending it. I assume the company sending out the ads is different than the one actually offering the product and they are just paid by the number they send out, regardless of effectiveness.
About every year and a half, there is always an article in the tech news about new top level domains. And every time, I tune out and dismiss it as the same old crap (no, I did not bother to read this article). Sometimes, as an added bonus, some PHB will be interviewed by Forbes and will say something really stupid about the new domain opening up a "whole new era of ecommerce". Nobody gives a rat's ass about new TLDs. Everybody registering a URL wants a.com and will only take something else if the.com is not available. Even then, most operators of large websites buy a domain in all of the TLDs and redirect them to the.com. Would any online merchant accept an address at a.store domain? Hell no. It doesn't have the same recognition as.com. ICANN'T is simply scraping the bottom of the barrel for money.
They can always say that they prohibit it, but losing the case in court means that they could not actually take action against someone for deep linking. Someone can say just about anything; I can say that anyone who looks at me in public owes me $100, but that doesn't mean I can legally collect. I suspect the reason Ticketmaster doesn't like deep linking is to prevent other ticket brokers from collecting ad revenue or whatever when they direct people to the Ticketmaster site. But that is the nature of the internet, which they clearly do not understand. They could have fixed this problem technologically a lot easier than they could have by going to court.
As cool as this show would be, especially since I live near Chicago, I will not go if Ticketmaster is the only way to get tickets. When it comes to companies with abusive business practices, which so many Slashdotters hate, I can't think of a worse example. Let's start with the complete monopoly they have over ticket distribution. How Pearl Jam lost their lawsuit is beyond me; Ticketmaster must be contributing generously to the correct campaigns. Then there are the fees. There is a service charge per ticket, which is listed with the ticket price. Then there is an order charge on the next screen. Just when you think you have a grand total, there are "convenience fees", then shipping fees, then a fee to print the tickets on your own damn printer. And if you use your real email address on the website, you'll get spam; it even says so right at the bottom of the page. In summary, Fuck Ticketmaster, I wouldn't use them even if Pink Floyd tours again and they are the only ticket seller.
Almost every 3 months, I hear something on the news or read in the paper about a "charity" that is collecting on behalf of some police or fire group and keeping most or all of the donations for themselves. Sometimes it's just an outright scam and the police warn people not to give them money. If there are any legitimate police/fire charities that telemarket or go door-to-door, the majority of the bad apples have ruined it for the few good ones, just like the telemarketing industry as a whole. Because the probability of a scam is so high with them, I just avoid them all and only donate to charities that I have researched and am familiar with. Even then, I'm careful about who I actually give my contact info to (never donate to the national wildlife fund, my Mom made that mistake once and they send her something asking for more money almost every week).
At the risk of being trolled, I must ask, how much does the salaries of 500 programmers cost? Would you need this many programmers with a more modern language? There is more to project cost than hardware and software. The biggest expense is usually labor. Also, every project delay I've ever encountered has been because of software problems or combined hardware/software problems.
Making it illegal to remove "government" spyware would certainly make the police and the politicians feel better, but would have no effect on any real criminal who knows what they're doing. They could just download the "foreign" version of a spyware removal tool which doesn't have the US spyware exemptions, hosted on a server in a country that doesn't give a crap about US trade regulations. This type of spyware will catch stupid criminals or those that just don't plan to get caught, but anyone who really takes action to avoid it will be able to defeat any government installed spyware.
Re:SUNDAY SUNDAY SUUUUUNNNNDDAAAAAAAYYY
on
Router Wars
·
· Score: 1
We sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need THE EDGE!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I will never again download anything from download.com without thoroughly researching it, since most of what they have now is full of the nastiest kind of spyware/adware/crapware. It will be very hard to fight the spyware battle when some of the organizations in the computer industry that are thought of as reputable end up pushing out spyware to their users.
Meal service isn't all that important to me. I'd just like there to be one airline where the plane arrives ON TIME! At least a 90% ontime rating, anyway. Some weather delays are inevitable, but the current situation is killing domestic aviation. Business travelers will drive if possible because they know that the flight will take about as long once they account for the flight delays and the getting to the airport 3 hours in advance to wait in line for airport insecurity.
Exactly. If the dude wants a level playing field by applying the indecency standards, we would then have to continue making it level by requiring listeners to subscribe to his station. How many people would be willing to pay and how much revenue would he make compared to the traditional model of ad sales? Sounds like he either didn't think this one through or he was just hoping he could trick the FCC into giving broadcast radio an unfair advantage by placing unconstitutional speech restrictions on a private network.
The publicity is mainly what they are looking for. Like people say "you can't buy this kind of publicity". It's an effective way to demonize music downloading of all kinds, which is their main goal. They want non-computer literate types to think it is always illegal to download music, therefore they will go to the mall and spend $19.99 on the newest pop crap. But people are slowly starting to wake up to what's going on. Does the music cartel have a backup plan for the inevitable loss of the old way of doing business?
I think this speaks volumes about the level of technical understanding that current SCO executives have. They seem completely unaware that they are distributing what they claim to be illegal, having only pulled it from their website but not the FTP site. I guess most PHBs haven't ever heard of FTP, much less know how to use it.
I don't think it will affect most people who would hear it, other than making them curious for a brief second. Most lyrics in Christmas music have very little meaning or connection to people, since they are from another era. When was the last time you roasted chestnuts on an open fire? Have you ever rode in a one horse open sleigh? Or even owned a pair of sleighbells other than for decoration? Neither has anyone else for almost the last 100 years. Kids today don't even know what these things are, so they certainly won't be upset if Christmas classics are changed around a bit.
Powering many common devices using USB, Ethernet, or other low voltage sources makes a lot of sense. Many devices that are in widespread use such as battery chargers, small lights, telephones, inkjet printers, do not need the full 120/240 volts to operate. Low voltage power could be a lot more convenient in many cases, since a standard electrical outlet and the transformer plug would not be required.
You didn't run 120 VAC through those cables did you? I'm guessing you used lower voltage that was just enough to power the WAPs. Does this pose any problems regarding electrical code compliance?
Then you switch to Trend Micro, which is what my company did when their network got taken down by a virus even with Norton "protection" running. Symantec has done nothing to Norton products other than run them into the ground. How much longer will this company be able to keep running on fumes? In this case, the fumes are the reputation of the once-great Norton product line. These tools (Internet Seecurity and Anti-Virus) are perfect examples of what happens when technical design decisions are made by MBA and PHB types.
Stamps are US currency. Its a federal crime to damage one
Whoops, I ripped one the other day when I was opening a letter I got in the mail! I hope the feds don't bust me for that.
There is a clear distinction between public and private space. In public, the government can put up cameras because it is a public space and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In private space, only the property owner or a person designated by the owner can put up a camera. They are well within their rights to do this, provided they don't put a camera in an area where an individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a restroom stall. The police cannot put a camera in a private space, or aim a camera into a private space, without a warrant. I realize you value your privacy, but keep in mind that public places are by definition not private, and that the government won't be putting cameras in private spaces anytime soon, as it would pretty much require the constitution to be gutted first.
Actually I don't think they will. Financial houses are notoriously cheap when it comes to operations that the customers don't directly see, like IT. Just ask anyone who has worked in a bank IT group. They will be very very resentful of some leech's attempt to insert themselves into the money stream. These patent trolls have bitten off more than they can chew on this one. I expect to see this group of patents defeated, especially with the huge amount of prior art since electronic trading is not a new technology by any means.
The only way to really get rid of spammers, and this includes "legitimate" spammers like our friend Scotty, is for the feds to get serious about prosecuting them. And I don't mean filing charges based on some kooky new anti-spam law that is full of loopholes. Take them down like they did Al Capone. Start investigating known spammers for all different kinds of law violations, like tax law, interstate commerce law, licensing regulations (do those online pharmacies that have operations in the US have proper licenses?) and other general business regulations. I'll be willing to bet that almost all spammers are breaking a law in some way. Find that, shut them down, and others will get the hint. Sure, some people will continue to do it, but the volume of spam will decrease as the overall cost of sending spam increases.
Salon is a perfect example of a "media" company that just does not understand the internet and is trying to turn it into cable TV. Nobody wants full-screen audio/video ads, like you would see on TV. All it does is annoy the user and fail to generate interest in the product being advertised. When you see one of these, do you click through to the advertiser's site, or tap your foot until it is over? I would guess the overall success rate (ad views vs. sales) is dismal, or at the very least no more effective than relevant text ads. The so-called creative types in marketing departments need to find an advertising medium for the internet that actually works instead of just pissing off the user which is all that popups, flash ads and screen covering ads manage to do. As another example of a truly annoying web experience, try visiting chicagotribune.com without a pop-up blocker.
Unfortunately, many advertisers work this way. I get an offer in the mail for a Chase Visa card at least once a week. You would think that they would figure out that if I didn't sign up the first 50 times they sent something, I would still be unlikely to do so the 51st time. They could save some postage and just stop sending it. I assume the company sending out the ads is different than the one actually offering the product and they are just paid by the number they send out, regardless of effectiveness.
About every year and a half, there is always an article in the tech news about new top level domains. And every time, I tune out and dismiss it as the same old crap (no, I did not bother to read this article). Sometimes, as an added bonus, some PHB will be interviewed by Forbes and will say something really stupid about the new domain opening up a "whole new era of ecommerce". Nobody gives a rat's ass about new TLDs. Everybody registering a URL wants a .com and will only take something else if the .com is not available. Even then, most operators of large websites buy a domain in all of the TLDs and redirect them to the .com. Would any online merchant accept an address at a .store domain? Hell no. It doesn't have the same recognition as .com. ICANN'T is simply scraping the bottom of the barrel for money.
They can always say that they prohibit it, but losing the case in court means that they could not actually take action against someone for deep linking. Someone can say just about anything; I can say that anyone who looks at me in public owes me $100, but that doesn't mean I can legally collect. I suspect the reason Ticketmaster doesn't like deep linking is to prevent other ticket brokers from collecting ad revenue or whatever when they direct people to the Ticketmaster site. But that is the nature of the internet, which they clearly do not understand. They could have fixed this problem technologically a lot easier than they could have by going to court.
As cool as this show would be, especially since I live near Chicago, I will not go if Ticketmaster is the only way to get tickets. When it comes to companies with abusive business practices, which so many Slashdotters hate, I can't think of a worse example. Let's start with the complete monopoly they have over ticket distribution. How Pearl Jam lost their lawsuit is beyond me; Ticketmaster must be contributing generously to the correct campaigns. Then there are the fees. There is a service charge per ticket, which is listed with the ticket price. Then there is an order charge on the next screen. Just when you think you have a grand total, there are "convenience fees", then shipping fees, then a fee to print the tickets on your own damn printer. And if you use your real email address on the website, you'll get spam; it even says so right at the bottom of the page. In summary, Fuck Ticketmaster, I wouldn't use them even if Pink Floyd tours again and they are the only ticket seller.
Neither have you, what's your point?
Almost every 3 months, I hear something on the news or read in the paper about a "charity" that is collecting on behalf of some police or fire group and keeping most or all of the donations for themselves. Sometimes it's just an outright scam and the police warn people not to give them money. If there are any legitimate police/fire charities that telemarket or go door-to-door, the majority of the bad apples have ruined it for the few good ones, just like the telemarketing industry as a whole. Because the probability of a scam is so high with them, I just avoid them all and only donate to charities that I have researched and am familiar with. Even then, I'm careful about who I actually give my contact info to (never donate to the national wildlife fund, my Mom made that mistake once and they send her something asking for more money almost every week).
Cubicledrone, is that you?
At the risk of being trolled, I must ask, how much does the salaries of 500 programmers cost? Would you need this many programmers with a more modern language? There is more to project cost than hardware and software. The biggest expense is usually labor. Also, every project delay I've ever encountered has been because of software problems or combined hardware/software problems.
Making it illegal to remove "government" spyware would certainly make the police and the politicians feel better, but would have no effect on any real criminal who knows what they're doing. They could just download the "foreign" version of a spyware removal tool which doesn't have the US spyware exemptions, hosted on a server in a country that doesn't give a crap about US trade regulations. This type of spyware will catch stupid criminals or those that just don't plan to get caught, but anyone who really takes action to avoid it will be able to defeat any government installed spyware.
We sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need THE EDGE!!!
In other words, now that you've had your fun, you're going to make sure your kids never have theirs.