That's the beauty of it: God doesn't send anyone to hell (because we're already heading that way) - he only provides a way for them to be saved through Christ.
That is pure semantics bullshit. God created man, no? So man's imperfection is God's doing? That's what I thought.
Jesus did this: he ministered to prostitutes, people who slept around, corporate theives, etc.
approach to security. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to his 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 ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (X) 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 (X) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from crackers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) 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 (X) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in protocols ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack (X) Willingness of users to install OS patches (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (X) 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 (X) 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 (X) 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 (X) 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 ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! [Erm... what's that knocking on my door?]
That happens to Americans, too. Fox, for example, does football (American, not European or Australian). The games generally run over, meaning that the first few minutes of the next show are skipped. Fortunately, they cut their losses and don't move everything forward.
Why not change that? Write some code that says, if the middle of the screen is filled with X-color text that seems to be scrolling (where X is usually white, but can be changed as needed), then place that show on a low-priority setting.
I have a friend that uses Colinux to run Debian on his Windows machine (it's essentially a VirtualPC type thing). You could pop the server onto that and it should work fine.
They're not good at it anymore - desktop-wise, at least. You can get a superior computer from Dell/Compaq/etc, and it'll be cheaper, even after the 5% employee discount (from personal experience).
Yes... but Gator and some other spyware programs are voluntarily downloaded (I just spent 20 minutes explaining to a neighbor that there was no point in having me clean spyware off her computer if she wanted to keep CometCursor). Now, perhaps one could argue that a EULA of that sort is invalid because people don't read it, and the company knows it (a "good faith" type argument), but I have no idea whether that would hold any legal water.
I think I'll try Flickr. The load on my FC/Apache box is usually quite high the day after I tell friends I have pictures from XYZ event up...
Oh, and Google's Picasa is quite nice (Windows only, though). Photo organizing, automatic import (warning: any NSFW stuff will be found, heh), etc., but it also has stuff like automatic export to XHTML galleries - I can imagine it'd be quite easy to set it up with a batch file or two so a relative could export them to an XHTML gallery, then run the batch file to transmit it to server space you've given 'em.
I believe this has been done in Germany, though I'm not positive. I'd like to see it done in the US, though (blah, blah, standard "Slashdot's editors are US'ian, that's why it's US-centric" disclaimer here). IANAL, but IIRC, a contract is considered in parts. So the ludicrousness of the "can't remove with 3rd party software" doesn't invalidate Gator's EULA (assuming it is a contract). Not that we care, for the sake of this discussion; we want a precedent set that EULAs simply don't have the authority that a contract does.
Any lawyers or legally-minded individuals care to comment?
So? If it tries, as long as you don't click "yes", that's OK. Perhaps (in order to protect non-techies) FF/Moz should alter that alert to say something about spyware, or make it less obvious (just a little icon in the corner?).
I see two benefits: it'll help get medical care to people who've been shot, and it'll be at least something to start with when the cops go after the shooter. Often times in neighborhoods like this, cops know who the likely criminals are; they just need to narrow it down some.
If you want an example of a similar, but reversed, issue, (slow approval for a drug that should've been approved immediately), google for "Aldurazyme" (full name: alpha-L-iduronidase).
PS: Am I the only one who finds it darkly ironic that "The Sexecutioner" submitted this story?
Yes. I'd guess that either TS is an HIV researcher (or has HIV or is somehow in-the-know for another reason) or that the account was created for this person.
I wholeheartedly agree. And it's more Unix-ish (smaller programs that do one thing well). But my point was... no one takes that argument seriously anymore. And you forgot the "/" in your closing tag.
Which is why I put the smiley... it's like saying "vi is better than emacs". Although I personally found python easier to learn than Perl, although that may be because I hate reaching up to the top row for @,#,$, etc (I have very short fingers).
Slashdot Mirror
He gives us food, shelter, etc. out of the goodness of His heart.
Spoken like an insulated, naive middle (or upper) class person with no understanding of the world beyond their own experiences.
He is not forced to do this but regularly poors out His love upon us regularly.
And He gives us spelling, too, apparently.
"God made us" - which is exactly why he is responsible for our well-being, just as we are responsible for the well-being of our children.
That's the beauty of it: God doesn't send anyone to hell (because we're already heading that way) - he only provides a way for them to be saved through Christ.
That is pure semantics bullshit. God created man, no? So man's imperfection is God's doing? That's what I thought.
Jesus did this: he ministered to prostitutes, people who slept around, corporate theives, etc.
They had corporations back then?
He's not gonna get it, thank goodness. I mean ...
... what's that knocking on my door?]
Tenet's statements advocate a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to security. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to his 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
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) 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
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from crackers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) 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
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in protocols
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) 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
(X) 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
(X) 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
(X) 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
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down! [Erm
That happens to Americans, too. Fox, for example, does football (American, not European or Australian). The games generally run over, meaning that the first few minutes of the next show are skipped. Fortunately, they cut their losses and don't move everything forward.
Why not change that? Write some code that says, if the middle of the screen is filled with X-color text that seems to be scrolling (where X is usually white, but can be changed as needed), then place that show on a low-priority setting.
Hence the "desktop-wise". However ... the high-end thinkpads are nice, true, but the A-series is slow. And I don't like the mice.
Yeah, Dell is mostly crap, but by "superior" I mean, "a machine that will run the latest games".
I have a friend that uses Colinux to run Debian on his Windows machine (it's essentially a VirtualPC type thing). You could pop the server onto that and it should work fine.
They're not good at it anymore - desktop-wise, at least. You can get a superior computer from Dell/Compaq/etc, and it'll be cheaper, even after the 5% employee discount (from personal experience).
Yes ... but Gator and some other spyware programs are voluntarily downloaded (I just spent 20 minutes explaining to a neighbor that there was no point in having me clean spyware off her computer if she wanted to keep CometCursor). Now, perhaps one could argue that a EULA of that sort is invalid because people don't read it, and the company knows it (a "good faith" type argument), but I have no idea whether that would hold any legal water.
I think I'll try Flickr. The load on my FC/Apache box is usually quite high the day after I tell friends I have pictures from XYZ event up ...
Oh, and Google's Picasa is quite nice (Windows only, though). Photo organizing, automatic import (warning: any NSFW stuff will be found, heh), etc., but it also has stuff like automatic export to XHTML galleries - I can imagine it'd be quite easy to set it up with a batch file or two so a relative could export them to an XHTML gallery, then run the batch file to transmit it to server space you've given 'em.
I believe this has been done in Germany, though I'm not positive. I'd like to see it done in the US, though (blah, blah, standard "Slashdot's editors are US'ian, that's why it's US-centric" disclaimer here). IANAL, but IIRC, a contract is considered in parts. So the ludicrousness of the "can't remove with 3rd party software" doesn't invalidate Gator's EULA (assuming it is a contract). Not that we care, for the sake of this discussion; we want a precedent set that EULAs simply don't have the authority that a contract does.
Any lawyers or legally-minded individuals care to comment?
I agree with you, but it's better than IE because ActiveX crap can install itself without user interference.
So? If it tries, as long as you don't click "yes", that's OK. Perhaps (in order to protect non-techies) FF/Moz should alter that alert to say something about spyware, or make it less obvious (just a little icon in the corner?).
So buy two (if you can afford one, consider the other one "insurance") and set up software RAID.
I see two benefits: it'll help get medical care to people who've been shot, and it'll be at least something to start with when the cops go after the shooter. Often times in neighborhoods like this, cops know who the likely criminals are; they just need to narrow it down some.
If you want an example of a similar, but reversed, issue, (slow approval for a drug that should've been approved immediately), google for "Aldurazyme" (full name: alpha-L-iduronidase).
PS: Am I the only one who finds it darkly ironic that "The Sexecutioner" submitted this story?
Yes. I'd guess that either TS is an HIV researcher (or has HIV or is somehow in-the-know for another reason) or that the account was created for this person.
Why couldn't it be a woman having an affair and the husband being victimized?
Whoosh! The sound of sarcasm going right over someone's head.
I wholeheartedly agree. And it's more Unix-ish (smaller programs that do one thing well). But my point was ... no one takes that argument seriously anymore. And you forgot the "/" in your closing tag.
Which is why I put the smiley ... it's like saying "vi is better than emacs". Although I personally found python easier to learn than Perl, although that may be because I hate reaching up to the top row for @,#,$, etc (I have very short fingers).
There are known knowns, there are known unknowns ... I can't believe I'm quoting him!
I can write bad python just as easially as I can write good perl.
:-)
You're right - both are impossible.