The CAN-SPAM bill, as many of you may know, is aptly named. It allows spamming, providing the spammers aren't breaking existing laws. Woohoo. What a victory.
If I were to guess at the intent of IronPort, I would say that they'd start a multi-pronged profit operation. Charge other 'legal' spam companies money to stay out of SpamCop permanently, sell spam, and sell spamcop.
Nice job, guys. But I think other spamming businesses are going to be looking at you in a pretty jaundiced light -- it's clear you're trying to monopolize the spam sending market, and use those resources to kill off other spam-blocking services, thus providing a neat monopoly. And of course as soon as SpamCop is the only 'commercial' spam blocking list, the rates to stay out get jacked up; and so on and so forth. Maybe they'll start selling exemptions on a per-complaint basis, and thus tax spammers based on how much mail they send out. This would be ideal for them.
I doubt it'll work. People are not idiots. Even people who send spam, though sometimes I wonder. Anyone on either side of the battle should be able to see the writing on the wall.
Usually, I'd refuse to take the bait, but you're wrong here.
This is what the 'search' parameter is about in/etc/resolv.conf if on Linux(dunno about more general UNIX) or whatever monkey-word they use in Windows. Basically, it'll try resolving barewords like the one you posted there first using normal resolve techniques, then it'll tack on the domain and try again if resolving fails. So it might have been help.coxcable.net or something... nonetheless, tech support guy was probably a drooling idiot.
But they're not always totally full of crap -- I've had some good help from them on occasion, usually pointing out my more dumbass mistakes (which I'm grateful for -- saves me a lot of time).
I have yet to see any complicated logic that worked right the first time. I've come very close, with 2 people working on it and no access to the hardware, but it still had bugs -- they just weren't the kind of bugs that took hours of debugging.
I don't think it's such a good idea. You got nutters out there bombing doctors of abortion clinics, I'm sure there are loonies out there who wouldn't mind killing convicted sex offenders. Afterall they _did_ the time, and I don't think it will give people who really _do_ want to better their lives a fair deal.
The problem here, in my opinion, is that these kinds of crimes are not dealt with the same as other assaults, etc. The sex offenders are probably not given equality before the law; and this totally ruins the whole premise of the legal system ("To serve and protect", etc). Prejudice comes into play. And when people figure out that there are others who are getting away with violent acts against one particular group, it brings the focus of a violent segment of society onto that group.
Also it gives people a false sense of security.. Who's to say that a registered sex offender doesn't take a weekend holiday to another state to rape and kill? And you thought you were safe in a neighbourhood without any sex offenders..
The real thing that I recall about this subject is that it's largely about targets of opportunity. The people most likely to abuse children are those who know the children; priests, family members, friends, etc. It sucks, but it's true.
The only real defence (if you want to call it that) against sex offenders has nothing to do with registries and gated communities and all that kind of bullshit. What it has to do with is educating your kids. I recall the recent Slashdot post in which the guy told his kids not to give out info over IM networks, then played the evil man, got all their info in about five minutes, then went on to talk about what they were wearing, etc. He totally freaked his kids out; they were pissed as hell when they found out he did it. But he probably did them a real service by doing that. He may have prevented a _real_ situation like that from happening.
I've had machines usable with load averages WAY over fifty; I think the highest I've ever personally recorded was about 600 (at that, the machine wasn't really usable -- 15 minutes for chars typed to appear on screen). Oh. And that was with 2.4 or early 2.5... not 2.6:)
If you beat a dog and treat it badly, you will usually get a mean, ugly dog. If you mistreat people, you will usually get mean, ugly people. Is this a shocking revelation to you?
If you want to produce mean, ugly people, hate them, ridicule them, and isolate them. If you want to produce citizens of the world rather than of any particular nation, treat people right and accept them.
It is not the role of a supposedly apolitical organization to get involved in politics. Traditionally, academia has crossed borders without restrictions; why should it be any different now?
By accepting people who are from such countries as Iran, you're giving them a window on the outside world; at least then they can see that perhaps their own country isn't a perfect world, and that other countries (like the US) aren't necessarily evil either. Broadening minds is a very effective tool; it works much better than blocking countries off so that everyone inside is narrow-minded and follows the government's line.
Hatred and isolation, on the other hand, are totally counterproductive.
That's kind of shocking considering what the IEEE stands for. The points made on shameonieee.org are good points; they're going against their own regulations to cover their ass, in typical cowardly I'm-afraid-of-lawyers fashion.
If you're so afraid of US law, why don't you relocate to, say, Germany or France or even Canada? If this is such a big issue, why don't you serve your members better by moving to the Free World...
Reminds me of a line from an old song... "You are living in the free world, and in the free world you must stay"
Dragging the nationality of their organization into the debate will not serve to promote their organization.
No. The real problem is that this is insidious. It's taking technology which is potentially very dangerous and making it feel warm and fuzzy (err, ok, cold and slimy -- but still). This is the problem with this fish. It encourages a laissez-faire attitude about genetically modified organisms -- and I for one don't believe that they should be treated like toys.
One of the problems with genetically modified organisms is that humans themselves are not a homogenous population. What causes no problems for one set of people may make another population seriously ill or kill them (see allergies). In general with normal, unaltered vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, grains, whatever, you know what you're buying. With GMOs you really don't. Do you know what kind of gene the corn in the tortilla chips you ate was crossed with? Nope? I'm not surprised.
Even if a few sexually active specimen get into the wild, I doubt a fish that is unable to turn off its "come and eat me" sign is going to last long enough to find a mate that isn't already scared-off by the horny lightbulb trying to have sex with it.
May I say -- RTFA? Fluorescent fish will only fluoresce (glow) under a black light -- aka under a lot of UV.
The fundamental problem is that you don't _know_ what's going to happen when they get into the wild (and it's a when, not an if)... you're perturbing a system you know very little about. It may have some implications you never even suspected.
You're already seeing genetic crossover from roundup-resistant crops to weeds (wish I had an article to link here). This gene could cross over to another animal or plant and possibly do something very unusual...
Slashdot Mirror
The CAN-SPAM bill, as many of you may know, is aptly named. It allows spamming, providing the spammers aren't breaking existing laws. Woohoo. What a victory.
If I were to guess at the intent of IronPort, I would say that they'd start a multi-pronged profit operation. Charge other 'legal' spam companies money to stay out of SpamCop permanently, sell spam, and sell spamcop.
Nice job, guys. But I think other spamming businesses are going to be looking at you in a pretty jaundiced light -- it's clear you're trying to monopolize the spam sending market, and use those resources to kill off other spam-blocking services, thus providing a neat monopoly. And of course as soon as SpamCop is the only 'commercial' spam blocking list, the rates to stay out get jacked up; and so on and so forth. Maybe they'll start selling exemptions on a per-complaint basis, and thus tax spammers based on how much mail they send out. This would be ideal for them.
I doubt it'll work. People are not idiots. Even people who send spam, though sometimes I wonder. Anyone on either side of the battle should be able to see the writing on the wall.
Usually, I'd refuse to take the bait, but you're wrong here.
This is what the 'search' parameter is about in /etc/resolv.conf if on Linux(dunno about more general UNIX) or whatever monkey-word they use in Windows. Basically, it'll try resolving barewords like the one you posted there first using normal resolve techniques, then it'll tack on the domain and try again if resolving fails. So it might have been help.coxcable.net or something... nonetheless, tech support guy was probably a drooling idiot.
But they're not always totally full of crap -- I've had some good help from them on occasion, usually pointing out my more dumbass mistakes (which I'm grateful for -- saves me a lot of time).
Nah, I'm just saying you either have a very good sense of humour or a strong tendency to use hyperbole :P
BRUTAL! ROFL re indpt of thought! VERY clever sneaking that in!
Don't make me laugh!
I have yet to see any complicated logic that worked right the first time. I've come very close, with 2 people working on it and no access to the hardware, but it still had bugs -- they just weren't the kind of bugs that took hours of debugging.
I don't think it's such a good idea. You got nutters out there bombing doctors of abortion clinics, I'm sure there are loonies out there who wouldn't mind killing convicted sex offenders. Afterall they _did_ the time, and I don't think it will give people who really _do_ want to better their lives a fair deal.
The problem here, in my opinion, is that these kinds of crimes are not dealt with the same as other assaults, etc. The sex offenders are probably not given equality before the law; and this totally ruins the whole premise of the legal system ("To serve and protect", etc). Prejudice comes into play. And when people figure out that there are others who are getting away with violent acts against one particular group, it brings the focus of a violent segment of society onto that group.
Also it gives people a false sense of security.. Who's to say that a registered sex offender doesn't take a weekend holiday to another state to rape and kill? And you thought you were safe in a neighbourhood without any sex offenders..
The real thing that I recall about this subject is that it's largely about targets of opportunity. The people most likely to abuse children are those who know the children; priests, family members, friends, etc. It sucks, but it's true.
The only real defence (if you want to call it that) against sex offenders has nothing to do with registries and gated communities and all that kind of bullshit. What it has to do with is educating your kids. I recall the recent Slashdot post in which the guy told his kids not to give out info over IM networks, then played the evil man, got all their info in about five minutes, then went on to talk about what they were wearing, etc. He totally freaked his kids out; they were pissed as hell when they found out he did it. But he probably did them a real service by doing that. He may have prevented a _real_ situation like that from happening.
Take it tux?
That little devil is up to more than meets the eye...
The _load_ was too high? Holy shit...
I've had machines usable with load averages WAY over fifty; I think the highest I've ever personally recorded was about 600 (at that, the machine wasn't really usable -- 15 minutes for chars typed to appear on screen). Oh. And that was with 2.4 or early 2.5... not 2.6 :)
That depends on what you're trying to produce.
Umm. What can I reply to this other than "duh".
If you beat a dog and treat it badly, you will usually get a mean, ugly dog. If you mistreat people, you will usually get mean, ugly people. Is this a shocking revelation to you?
If you want to produce mean, ugly people, hate them, ridicule them, and isolate them. If you want to produce citizens of the world rather than of any particular nation, treat people right and accept them.
It is not the role of a supposedly apolitical organization to get involved in politics. Traditionally, academia has crossed borders without restrictions; why should it be any different now?
By accepting people who are from such countries as Iran, you're giving them a window on the outside world; at least then they can see that perhaps their own country isn't a perfect world, and that other countries (like the US) aren't necessarily evil either. Broadening minds is a very effective tool; it works much better than blocking countries off so that everyone inside is narrow-minded and follows the government's line.
Hatred and isolation, on the other hand, are totally counterproductive.
That's kind of shocking considering what the IEEE stands for. The points made on shameonieee.org are good points; they're going against their own regulations to cover their ass, in typical cowardly I'm-afraid-of-lawyers fashion.
If you're so afraid of US law, why don't you relocate to, say, Germany or France or even Canada? If this is such a big issue, why don't you serve your members better by moving to the Free World...
Reminds me of a line from an old song... "You are living in the free world, and in the free world you must stay"
Dragging the nationality of their organization into the debate will not serve to promote their organization.
No. The real problem is that this is insidious. It's taking technology which is potentially very dangerous and making it feel warm and fuzzy (err, ok, cold and slimy -- but still). This is the problem with this fish. It encourages a laissez-faire attitude about genetically modified organisms -- and I for one don't believe that they should be treated like toys.
One of the problems with genetically modified organisms is that humans themselves are not a homogenous population. What causes no problems for one set of people may make another population seriously ill or kill them (see allergies). In general with normal, unaltered vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, grains, whatever, you know what you're buying. With GMOs you really don't. Do you know what kind of gene the corn in the tortilla chips you ate was crossed with? Nope? I'm not surprised.
May I say -- RTFA? Fluorescent fish will only fluoresce (glow) under a black light -- aka under a lot of UV.
The fundamental problem is that you don't _know_ what's going to happen when they get into the wild (and it's a when, not an if)... you're perturbing a system you know very little about. It may have some implications you never even suspected.
You're already seeing genetic crossover from roundup-resistant crops to weeds (wish I had an article to link here). This gene could cross over to another animal or plant and possibly do something very unusual...