approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems (X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam (X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (X) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Look anywhere in the sky (after all, space itself has expanded from the point where it happened, so the big bang happened everywhere). There is still a faint glow. It has doppler shifted a lot, not due to motion but due to the expansion of the space it has travelled through. It's called the cosmic microwave background, and it causes a very small part of the interferance you can see on an untuned tv.
I think that another factor is the tendancy of the phone to increase the power of it's signal when it can't find a cell. Usually it's low to save battery power. Obviously, more power is more interference.
Ok, this proves quantum theory. Saying that parralel universes therefore follow is either gross oversimplification or just forcing your metaphysical opinions of a physical theory on others.
And yes, Young's double slits, old news.
Also, this doesn't show that light is a wave. This demonstrates that a photon can be placed in superposition. This experiment has also been done with electron beams, whole atoms, and (IIRC) C60 (buckminsterfullerene), and they make interference paterns. Now atoms are definitely particles.
The "dust" is probably not sand, but pollution. Cairo has such serious air pollution that from the top of tall buildings the horizon is not other buildings, but a sort of haze.
Thats worth knowing, in this building there are 2 computers at desks with fluorescent desk lamps. One works fine, but one PC is new. Interesting to see if it goes wrong...
RJ-45 can be unobtrusive. You just need to use those cable clip things (you know, that nail to the wall), and run it along the top of the wall, or under carpets, or behind a sofa.
You don't notice your phone system's cables being ugly, do you? (then again in some building those are behind the walls...)
Er... What?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't PDAs based on a hardware architecture thats not used in desktops? Or at least not in PCs!
Unless you count anything with RAM, a proccesor, and a disk as a PC...
I know people who have dailup internet connections and two or three computers, none of them laptops, but still use wifi in preference to RJ-45. (In fact I know people who connect one fixed computer to it's dial-up with WiFi, cause RJ11 phone cable is ugly.)
It's very fashionable, but doesn't seem to work very well. Everyone I know with a WiFi home network has had problems with it.
That said, the idea of free connections in cafes would be cool if there where more of them...
Slashdot Mirror
No. Not more awful ringtones. Please.
I hate ringtones. Particularly ringtones of songs. Now everyone will have thier favorite song as a ringtone.
I still have computers from before 1990
I have a 1982 BBC Microcomputer. Can I use it as a thin end client?
"Microchips to Save Peru's Alpacas".
That just sounds really funny.
I for one welcome our new Matrix overlords.
Wait a moment...
I'm sorry, that's so scary it's not even funny.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
(X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Then maybe something is wrong with aformentioned capitalist principles...
Yeah. You can.
Look anywhere in the sky (after all, space itself has expanded from the point where it happened, so the big bang happened everywhere). There is still a faint glow. It has doppler shifted a lot, not due to motion but due to the expansion of the space it has travelled through. It's called the cosmic microwave background, and it causes a very small part of the interferance you can see on an untuned tv.
I think that another factor is the tendancy of the phone to increase the power of it's signal when it can't find a cell. Usually it's low to save battery power. Obviously, more power is more interference.
Er, thats mice.
Assuming you meant H2G2.
I for one welcome our new Gaint Rat overlords...
People seem to have misunderstood this.
My point wasn't that they will shoot at their allies as usual, I was trying to say that they will still use them to shoot at their enemies.
I was kind of assuming that people where "The wrong things".
So there will be new, more powerful, more accurate weapons. Now we just need a way to stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...
True. But morons can use RJ45 cable more easily. And I think there might have been a wall in the way or a cordless phone interfering...
New /.ism: "IANAQP, but"
Ok, this proves quantum theory. Saying that parralel universes therefore follow is either gross oversimplification or just forcing your metaphysical opinions of a physical theory on others. And yes, Young's double slits, old news. Also, this doesn't show that light is a wave. This demonstrates that a photon can be placed in superposition. This experiment has also been done with electron beams, whole atoms, and (IIRC) C60 (buckminsterfullerene), and they make interference paterns. Now atoms are definitely particles.
Er... you ever been to Cairo?
The "dust" is probably not sand, but pollution.
Cairo has such serious air pollution that from the top of tall buildings the horizon is not other buildings, but a sort of haze.
In the TV series, they had an unconvincing plastic head.
They could do a lot better this time, but I hope they don't turn the whole film into a load of over-the-top computer graphics...
COOL!!!
But with DNA dead, they could just do this really badly. Which would be unforgivable.
Thats worth knowing, in this building there are 2 computers at desks with fluorescent desk lamps. One works fine, but one PC is new. Interesting to see if it goes wrong...
Thanks.
RJ-45 can be unobtrusive. You just need to use those cable clip things (you know, that nail to the wall), and run it along the top of the wall, or under carpets, or behind a sofa. You don't notice your phone system's cables being ugly, do you? (then again in some building those are behind the walls...)
Er... What? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't PDAs based on a hardware architecture thats not used in desktops? Or at least not in PCs! Unless you count anything with RAM, a proccesor, and a disk as a PC...
Mains Power-->Ethernet...
Isn't that from BOFH?
Yeah!!!
The only way to block data on an RJ-45 link is scissors.
(Or maybe a powerfull electromagnetic pulse? Induce current in the wires?)
I've never quite understood WiFi.
I know people who have dailup internet connections and two or three computers, none of them laptops, but still use wifi in preference to RJ-45. (In fact I know people who connect one fixed computer to it's dial-up with WiFi, cause RJ11 phone cable is ugly.)
It's very fashionable, but doesn't seem to work very well. Everyone I know with a WiFi home network has had problems with it.
That said, the idea of free connections in cafes would be cool if there where more of them...
I think you mean a mod option, not a checkbox.