First, do not be so skeptical. Have you noticed how well Outlook 2003 spam filtering works? I realize the algorithm is different, but based on results, I have to say that it is probable that Microsoft will succeed with reasonable effectiveness.
Second, what business rationale is there to give away a competitive advantage (after spending millions to get it) in the very competitive search market, where, by the way, Microsoft is not the market leader?
Dave Morrill, Co-CEO of Assured Computing Technologies, a Bedford, N.H.-based system builder and solution provider, said he doesn't believe wide-scale migration from Microsoft to Linux will happen immediately, and customers who don't want to spring for Vista may simply stick with Windows XP rather than switch. However, Morrill said, once Microsoft stops supporting XP, it could be a different story. "At that point, you're going to see a shift and a loss of customers for Microsoft," he said.
Say what? Microsoft isn't supporting NT 4 now. Are companies migrating en masse to Fedora 5 or whatever version it was in 2000? And I am sure that Novell is just chomping at the bit, waiting for 2011, when MS stops supporting XP.
You may have somewhat of a point, but come on, you cannot mean that 99% of what we do is a waste of time. Do not underestimate the ability of the free market system to weed out inefficiencies.
I believe that some 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a cross who had pretty similar ideas.. Seems he has a huge following outside the hippie scene also. Ok, I have to say that he looked a bit like a hippie.
Are you actually trying to use the bible as a foundation for your argument?
The problem is that you are wrong about whom get attacked by 'the violent'. They attack those whome are easiest to intimidate, regardless of actual strength. (which is one reason why terrorism is such an effective offensive strategy against the USA btw)
First of all, terrorism is often performed by parties who, due to anonymity, are immune (or are difficult) to counterattack. Second, the USA is actually fairly hard to intimidate. Say what you want about the many bubbas of this country, but they are the first to say "let's go kick their ass." Third, and most relevant, while you can debate whether the strong get attacked too, you seem to blissfully ignore the fact that the poster is absolutely correct on the specific point addressed - spammers have nothing to fear in terms of an actual counterattack. To draw an analogy from RTS games, the defending mail servers are just "turtling," building up stronger and stronger defenses in the hope the attackers will decide that spamming is not worth the effort. Maybe the strategy will work, maybe it will not, but we all know the flaw with turtling - you can never kill the opponent, only survive.
A tiered Internet could be more efficient. Traffic that needs reliable speeds, like say VOIP, should be placed ahead of filesharing and email. Nobody cares if their email gets to the destination one second later, but a one second delay in voice communications can clearly be felt. Why not let the free market decide this?
The economy may be almost nothing to the universe, but it is very important to all of us humans. It doesn't just affect those "fiddling with the markets." Most of your activities relate with the economy in some way, from the foods you get to eat, to your entertainment, driving, working, where you live, how you talk with your friends, and on and on. You would not even get to type your half-formulated thoughts into slashdot had the ecomony turned out differently with respect to computers or the Internet.
Don't you see, we need to take measures against these child-pornographers, in whatever way we can, before they take over the world. Imagine, back in Nazi Germany, if the people had taken a stand against their Nazi oppressors early on, World War II could have been averted and tens of millions of people would not have died.
It is not super enforceable. According to the fine article, the law would only prohibit open networks where some kind of confidential data is kept by the business. And what if the confidential data is on a separate, firewalled network, away from the open network - who knows? Anyway, see how compicated this is getting? Your proposed wardriver would only be at the tip of the investigation.
And a Jamaican would tell you that homosexuality is illegal - and vile.
So what is your point, that homosexuality and child pornography are really both OK? Even though homosexuality is consensual and child porn is often not?
Also, can the posession of anything, by your logic, be illegal? What about knowingly possessing human organs, which have been illegally harvested? Gee, why stomp on that? We all know it's only the harvesting of a liver from someone who does not want to give it up that is actually harmful. We will give the distributors a slide.
Look, unless you think that the creation of child pornography is ok, (which maybe you do, since you equate it with homosexuality), you have to concede that attacking child-porn's chain of distribution is a reasonable move. If you cannot make posession illegal, how do you stop the website operators from selling their wares?
I was thinking in terms of an ISP that is hosting the website. It would not be hard for them to log traffic to the website, once they know the website is a child-porn website. I do suspect that when a proposal comes out, it will not be as restrictive as what I am suggesting. But do think of the children.
. . . but the proposals the article mentions, which are to force webhosts to report child-porn websites, seem completely reasonable. The article also says that Gonzalez is looking at ways to force webhosts to track user activity, but this could easily mean just tracking user activity to the illegal child-porn websites, which also seems reasonable. Until we see an actual proposal on activity tracking, there is nothing to get into a fuss about.
This raises something I have sometimes thought about, but did not deliberate enough to think up of an adequate answer.
How did Microsoft financially benefit from Internet Explorer's dominance? IE is and always has been a free product. More relevant to this topic, Windows Defender is free and probably always will be. Sure, other anti-malware software companies may suffer because their products are not so in demand, but so what?
Also, I do not even see this as an entry into another market, more of an effort make the core product better. As an analogy, what if GM suddenly added a device to all their cars that would clean the engine oil on the fly? Engine oil would never need to be changed. Engine oil manufacturers and oil changing stations may get up-in-arms over this, claiming that GM was using its monopoly power (let's assume GM had a dominant position similar to MS) unfairly, but really, it is just a matter of GM making its cars less prone to failure and in need of less maintenance.
I don't know how many times I have heard people complaining about other people complaining about iTunes selling television shows. How many people are in an uproar because people complain about ABC making money first from commericals aired during their shows on television AND by selling the show on iTMS.
What is the purpose of your complaining about other people complaining?
First, you don't have to listen to the complaints.
Why is it that some people are so jealous or fanatical about people who complain about companies that make money? Why bother to complain about the complaints? If someone forced you to listen to their complains, then that is reason for complaining (i.e. the government complaining to you about your taxes). But some person complaining about corporation that sells television shows is really no target for the kind of criticism and whining people are doing. Your just wasting your breath and straining your fingers.
When someone complains about a person who complains about a product or service they have no intention of buying or participating in, then that is just moronic. It is a classic definition of an idiot.
I think you are getting too tangled up in the meanings of the passages. I do not think the exact meaning is all that important. Let's just cut to the chase - no matter how you interpret the passages Brain mentions, it is not in dispute that prayer is encouraged to some degree. Maybe God never says, "I will answer every prayer." Maybe God does not listen to every prayer. But you have to admit that by even the greatest stretch of interpretation, it can, at a very minimum, be concluded that God does choose to listen to some prayers and will answer some prayers. In other words, you cannot conclude, from the Bible, that God will not answer a single prayer.
Now, with that out of the way, we can dive directly into what Brain was talking about. Given the fact that God has answered some prayers (at least according to the true believers), why does God not heal amputees in response to prayer. There really is not a good answer that comports with our sense of what is good and just and what God is meant to be. All that can really be said is that God works in mysterious ways and we cannot fathom his plan.
If you have nothing better to do it's not an addiction.
See, this is where you are wrong. There is always something better to do, you just have not thought of it. You mentioned your wonderful 9-5 job with sarcasm. Maybe you can improve on that job. Maybe you can figure out how to turn your skills to self employment, maybe you can get a second degree, maybe you can learn new skills and triple your income. This is life, the possibilities are endless. But if much your thoughts and free time outside of work are consumed by a stupid game, you will not get ahead.
This is coming from a former addict, and the changes in my life since I have quit are like night and day. It is all about what you are focused on in life.
I do not think the supreme court is not reviewing the validity of the patent. I believe the issue is with using the injunction as a tool in patent prosecution. It is an important issue. The injunction is what causes people to pay up and settle, otherwise they keep on infringing until the end of the case.
The whole reason Perfect10 brought the lawsuit is that its copyrighted photos were shown by other sites, which were indexed by Google. So, removing Perfect10 from the search would not cure the matter.
This is just so false. Radio stations are not forced to play anything specific. They can play whatever they want, and many local college stations do just that. You may be confused by the fact that disk jockeys are forced by their employers to follow a specific playlist. Also, you are even wrong on the Windows bit. OEMs, Dell for example, often preinstall Linux or no OS at all. People just seem to buy the Windows PCs more.
I think you need to look up whatever state and federal penal statutes apply. Just saying "unauthorized use of a computer" is too vague. You need to look at the exact statutes to see what kind of intent is required, what kind of monetary damage is required, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
First, do not be so skeptical. Have you noticed how well Outlook 2003 spam filtering works? I realize the algorithm is different, but based on results, I have to say that it is probable that Microsoft will succeed with reasonable effectiveness.
Second, what business rationale is there to give away a competitive advantage (after spending millions to get it) in the very competitive search market, where, by the way, Microsoft is not the market leader?
Say what? Microsoft isn't supporting NT 4 now. Are companies migrating en masse to Fedora 5 or whatever version it was in 2000? And I am sure that Novell is just chomping at the bit, waiting for 2011, when MS stops supporting XP.
I believe your fucking lack of a sarcasm detector is none of the government's business either.
Thank you sir for submitting that kick-ass link.
You may have somewhat of a point, but come on, you cannot mean that 99% of what we do is a waste of time. Do not underestimate the ability of the free market system to weed out inefficiencies.
Are you actually trying to use the bible as a foundation for your argument?
The problem is that you are wrong about whom get attacked by 'the violent'. They attack those whome are easiest to intimidate, regardless of actual strength. (which is one reason why terrorism is such an effective offensive strategy against the USA btw)
First of all, terrorism is often performed by parties who, due to anonymity, are immune (or are difficult) to counterattack. Second, the USA is actually fairly hard to intimidate. Say what you want about the many bubbas of this country, but they are the first to say "let's go kick their ass." Third, and most relevant, while you can debate whether the strong get attacked too, you seem to blissfully ignore the fact that the poster is absolutely correct on the specific point addressed - spammers have nothing to fear in terms of an actual counterattack. To draw an analogy from RTS games, the defending mail servers are just "turtling," building up stronger and stronger defenses in the hope the attackers will decide that spamming is not worth the effort. Maybe the strategy will work, maybe it will not, but we all know the flaw with turtling - you can never kill the opponent, only survive.
A tiered Internet could be more efficient. Traffic that needs reliable speeds, like say VOIP, should be placed ahead of filesharing and email. Nobody cares if their email gets to the destination one second later, but a one second delay in voice communications can clearly be felt. Why not let the free market decide this?
The economy may be almost nothing to the universe, but it is very important to all of us humans. It doesn't just affect those "fiddling with the markets." Most of your activities relate with the economy in some way, from the foods you get to eat, to your entertainment, driving, working, where you live, how you talk with your friends, and on and on. You would not even get to type your half-formulated thoughts into slashdot had the ecomony turned out differently with respect to computers or the Internet.
Don't you see, we need to take measures against these child-pornographers, in whatever way we can, before they take over the world. Imagine, back in Nazi Germany, if the people had taken a stand against their Nazi oppressors early on, World War II could have been averted and tens of millions of people would not have died.
It is not super enforceable. According to the fine article, the law would only prohibit open networks where some kind of confidential data is kept by the business. And what if the confidential data is on a separate, firewalled network, away from the open network - who knows? Anyway, see how compicated this is getting? Your proposed wardriver would only be at the tip of the investigation.
So what is your point, that homosexuality and child pornography are really both OK? Even though homosexuality is consensual and child porn is often not?
Also, can the posession of anything, by your logic, be illegal? What about knowingly possessing human organs, which have been illegally harvested? Gee, why stomp on that? We all know it's only the harvesting of a liver from someone who does not want to give it up that is actually harmful. We will give the distributors a slide.
Look, unless you think that the creation of child pornography is ok, (which maybe you do, since you equate it with homosexuality), you have to concede that attacking child-porn's chain of distribution is a reasonable move. If you cannot make posession illegal, how do you stop the website operators from selling their wares?
I was thinking in terms of an ISP that is hosting the website. It would not be hard for them to log traffic to the website, once they know the website is a child-porn website. I do suspect that when a proposal comes out, it will not be as restrictive as what I am suggesting. But do think of the children.
. . . but the proposals the article mentions, which are to force webhosts to report child-porn websites, seem completely reasonable. The article also says that Gonzalez is looking at ways to force webhosts to track user activity, but this could easily mean just tracking user activity to the illegal child-porn websites, which also seems reasonable. Until we see an actual proposal on activity tracking, there is nothing to get into a fuss about.
How did Microsoft financially benefit from Internet Explorer's dominance? IE is and always has been a free product. More relevant to this topic, Windows Defender is free and probably always will be. Sure, other anti-malware software companies may suffer because their products are not so in demand, but so what?
Also, I do not even see this as an entry into another market, more of an effort make the core product better. As an analogy, what if GM suddenly added a device to all their cars that would clean the engine oil on the fly? Engine oil would never need to be changed. Engine oil manufacturers and oil changing stations may get up-in-arms over this, claiming that GM was using its monopoly power (let's assume GM had a dominant position similar to MS) unfairly, but really, it is just a matter of GM making its cars less prone to failure and in need of less maintenance.
The solution exists. Running as standard user in Windows XP will prevent changes to the hosts file.
What is the purpose of your complaining about other people complaining?
First, you don't have to listen to the complaints.
Why is it that some people are so jealous or fanatical about people who complain about companies that make money? Why bother to complain about the complaints? If someone forced you to listen to their complains, then that is reason for complaining (i.e. the government complaining to you about your taxes). But some person complaining about corporation that sells television shows is really no target for the kind of criticism and whining people are doing. Your just wasting your breath and straining your fingers.
When someone complains about a person who complains about a product or service they have no intention of buying or participating in, then that is just moronic. It is a classic definition of an idiot.
Now, with that out of the way, we can dive directly into what Brain was talking about. Given the fact that God has answered some prayers (at least according to the true believers), why does God not heal amputees in response to prayer. There really is not a good answer that comports with our sense of what is good and just and what God is meant to be. All that can really be said is that God works in mysterious ways and we cannot fathom his plan.
See, this is where you are wrong. There is always something better to do, you just have not thought of it. You mentioned your wonderful 9-5 job with sarcasm. Maybe you can improve on that job. Maybe you can figure out how to turn your skills to self employment, maybe you can get a second degree, maybe you can learn new skills and triple your income. This is life, the possibilities are endless. But if much your thoughts and free time outside of work are consumed by a stupid game, you will not get ahead.
This is coming from a former addict, and the changes in my life since I have quit are like night and day. It is all about what you are focused on in life.
I do not think the supreme court is not reviewing the validity of the patent. I believe the issue is with using the injunction as a tool in patent prosecution. It is an important issue. The injunction is what causes people to pay up and settle, otherwise they keep on infringing until the end of the case.
Have you actually read the patent? Maybe there is more to it.
The whole reason Perfect10 brought the lawsuit is that its copyrighted photos were shown by other sites, which were indexed by Google. So, removing Perfect10 from the search would not cure the matter.
This is just so false. Radio stations are not forced to play anything specific. They can play whatever they want, and many local college stations do just that. You may be confused by the fact that disk jockeys are forced by their employers to follow a specific playlist. Also, you are even wrong on the Windows bit. OEMs, Dell for example, often preinstall Linux or no OS at all. People just seem to buy the Windows PCs more.
I disagree. Some good music does not sound good initially at all, but grows on you after repetitive listening. I do agree on the party bit, though.
I think they would just bar anyone from registering com, org, net, etc. as domains.
I think you need to look up whatever state and federal penal statutes apply. Just saying "unauthorized use of a computer" is too vague. You need to look at the exact statutes to see what kind of intent is required, what kind of monetary damage is required, etc.