Except that the city is already collecting the data at taxpayer expense. Thus, a taxpayer (individual citizen) should be able to get copies of it at little or no cost (maybe $0.50/CD if it isn't downloadable).
I ran into a similar problem here in Billings, MT: the city collects the data, uses it, but doesn't share with others - appparently at all.
You can be reasonably certain that by the time the government/military admit to having something, or what its capabilities are, they've already got something else/better online.
I was in the Navy, and the stuff that was officially conceded as far as capabilities was usually low by 10% or (usually) more.
Considering how much BS Verisign has instigated (the "your domain is gonna die if you don't renew with us" letters, hijacking DNS, etc.), their certs don't mean squat to me anyway.
mmmmmmmm - I think not. You can get a similar convenience by using smaller rigid cells on a foldable surface, and still have the higher efficiency. Oh, well.
I wonder how the efficiency of these panels compares to the more conventional ones. I can't help but think that there's probably a difference; but if it isn't too bad, they could prove to be pretty useful.
Granted that the spammers don't do 1eet well, but I still get a lot of crap for C|AL|S and V|aGRA and such on my disposable (hotmail) account.
So, when does your new missus arrive, anyway?:-)
Joe-jobs were addressed in the first set of replies to my comment (Vengie).
As for #3, what filtering? If I get a spam from some outfit like an online pharmacy, why shouldn't I be able to just forward it to the appropriate authorities? If I (and a lot of others being spammed for them) do it, then the penalties for spamming us are enough to convince them not to do it again.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have to be up to all the people being spammed to filter or block the crap; there should be penalties to the spammers, and if necessary, the companies that hire them. Millions of people shouldn't have to be PROactive when the solution is to convince a few thousand people to be INactive.
I think you just said what I did, only differently.
I was trying to say that a company that used a spammer to contract advertising WOULD have a money trail; the target of a Joe-job wouldn't: the competitor that I spammed from that relay in China would _not_ have a financial link, and would thus have prima facie evidence of innocence in the eyes of the law.
Even routing the money through a middleman or three before it got to a spammer would leave a money trail to be followed; an innocent victim would be able to show that there was no expenditure to justify the "advertising".
Better to investigate the hell out of a dozen Joe-job victims and apologize afterwards than to let one spamvertiser go free.
From what I read on Wikipedia, Joe-jobs aren't that common. I would suspect that any company that's the target of such an attack will have a pretty good idea of who's doing it, and why - and have ways of dealing with it.
I would also expect that a Joe-job would be missing the link of funds being transferred from the target to the spamvertiser, which would be a good start toward demonstrating innocence to the authorities.
1) I didn't ask for it.
2) It isn't in my (native) language.
3) I have no pre-existing relationship with the company being mentioned.
4) The subject line must parse as normal language - |\|0 l33t-5p34|
5) May not include any attachments.
6) May not consist of only a graphic or link to a website.
For additional protection, hold the companies being advertised liable for the actions of the company doing the "promotion".
Slashdot Mirror
Windows users now have MS Anti-Spyware.
That's what I used to tell my ex-wife, but she didn't go for it, either...
I guess I'm going to have to stop telling people that IBM actually stands for I've Been Mugged.
Except that the city is already collecting the data at taxpayer expense. Thus, a taxpayer (individual citizen) should be able to get copies of it at little or no cost (maybe $0.50/CD if it isn't downloadable).
I ran into a similar problem here in Billings, MT: the city collects the data, uses it, but doesn't share with others - appparently at all.
Don't forget the Biker. (hums YMCA to self)
You can be reasonably certain that by the time the government/military admit to having something, or what its capabilities are, they've already got something else/better online.
I was in the Navy, and the stuff that was officially conceded as far as capabilities was usually low by 10% or (usually) more.
And God said "sqrt(e/m)=c" - and there was light.
lasers in the 3-5Mw range ... in the 30-50Mw range
Megawatts? Or should that have been mW for milliwatts?
(yes, I'm being picky and semantic. This is Slashdot, remember?)
I think the key phrase in the article is embedded software; that would seem to exclude desktop OSes.
Look, they're already there, they already have the equipment and resources, and I'd bet they get it all set up on their own time. What does it hurt?
Considering how much BS Verisign has instigated (the "your domain is gonna die if you don't renew with us" letters, hijacking DNS, etc.), their certs don't mean squat to me anyway.
Signed buggy insecure crap, or unsigned open source? Hmmmmmmm - let me think on that....
True. If it was a difference of even 10%, it might be worthwhile; but between 20+% and SEVEN? Nah.
mmmmmmmm - I think not. You can get a similar convenience by using smaller rigid cells on a foldable surface, and still have the higher efficiency. Oh, well.
I wonder how the efficiency of these panels compares to the more conventional ones. I can't help but think that there's probably a difference; but if it isn't too bad, they could prove to be pretty useful.
Granted that the spammers don't do 1eet well, but I still get a lot of crap for C|AL|S and V|aGRA and such on my disposable (hotmail) account. So, when does your new missus arrive, anyway? :-)
Joe-jobs were addressed in the first set of replies to my comment (Vengie).
As for #3, what filtering? If I get a spam from some outfit like an online pharmacy, why shouldn't I be able to just forward it to the appropriate authorities? If I (and a lot of others being spammed for them) do it, then the penalties for spamming us are enough to convince them not to do it again.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have to be up to all the people being spammed to filter or block the crap; there should be penalties to the spammers, and if necessary, the companies that hire them. Millions of people shouldn't have to be PROactive when the solution is to convince a few thousand people to be INactive.
The investigation would be paid for by the government, since the government is the one that is making spamming illegal.
I was just trying to point out that defining "spam" isn't quite as hard as the government dipshits are trying to make it.
I think you just said what I did, only differently.
I was trying to say that a company that used a spammer to contract advertising WOULD have a money trail; the target of a Joe-job wouldn't: the competitor that I spammed from that relay in China would _not_ have a financial link, and would thus have prima facie evidence of innocence in the eyes of the law.
Even routing the money through a middleman or three before it got to a spammer would leave a money trail to be followed; an innocent victim would be able to show that there was no expenditure to justify the "advertising".
Better to investigate the hell out of a dozen Joe-job victims and apologize afterwards than to let one spamvertiser go free.
From what I read on Wikipedia, Joe-jobs aren't that common. I would suspect that any company that's the target of such an attack will have a pretty good idea of who's doing it, and why - and have ways of dealing with it. I would also expect that a Joe-job would be missing the link of funds being transferred from the target to the spamvertiser, which would be a good start toward demonstrating innocence to the authorities.
2) It isn't in my (native) language.
3) I have no pre-existing relationship with the company being mentioned.
4) The subject line must parse as normal language - |\|0 l33t-5p34| 5) May not include any attachments.
6) May not consist of only a graphic or link to a website.
For additional protection, hold the companies being advertised liable for the actions of the company doing the "promotion".
Well, he DID warn people that the web site sucked. Not as bad as I'd thought it would be, though, I have to admit.
Microsoft gets people bent over a barrel, and then decides to start charging them barrel rent, too. How is this news?
we will have to wait for the next exploit to be announced
That should be exploitS.