You're right, I've never written any program and payed attention to syntax,etc... and I certainly can't tell the difference between that and posting a comment on Slashdot.
Of course, I guess that's why I said 'humans' and not 'compilers'.
Of course there are drawbacks in defeating it, and defeating it wasn't what I was referring to. Not to mention a lot of methods to defeat the Right-Click don't work at all, and even more only work on specific types of browsers. Perhaps you should have said "that's *easy* to defeat" ?
Most people don't know how to read through the source to find the "real" image, most people don't know how the find the file in their browser cache... and even the ones that do might not think it's worth the trouble.
I'd have to guess the people that do will just Right-Click and Save As...
That's the point, the FCC is making it bad ($11,000 fine) for people to spam people's phones (phonenumber@). I can only assume that is why this list is so heavy with domains that offer SMS.
I'm beginning to understand why this list is moving so slowly...
You know, they say humans are one of few (possibly only) animals that can interpret misspelled words and things as they should be almost without any trouble at all. Something to do with intelligence.
But then, apparently some people feel better about themselves to jump on a typo and say the person is dumb. Careless, maybe. But what does a typo have to do with grammar?! I realize it's a recurring theme here, but seriously...you'd think we could figure out the difference by now? Humans (are supposed to) have a natural ability and drive to categorize things too, I guess it goes hand in hand with intelligence though...
Well, scratch the first part. But I think the rest of my explanation still makes sense. Sorry about that. And since they can't possibly expect to keep track of who the subscribers are giving permission to, I'd assume you will have to give permission to allow all spam to you (since they would not be able to properly filter it) if your consent is given for some. But perhaps that's still a bit optimistic of me...
Your post is unclear to me. You quote the same exact phrase (in italics) but have trouble understanding it one time and not the other.
Please understand the phrase, "to which telemarketers". The listed domains are not the ones sending the e-mail, they are the ones TO WHICH it is being illicitly (illegally) sent TO. If you continue past the headline and RTFA, you'll see it seems as though the listed domains will be held responsible for allowing the e-mails to be transmitted (think pass through). I believe that is a correct understanding, and hopefully what you were trying to ask in the first place.
Does hypocrit mean anything to you? Who are you? Why are you talking about me as though we've been pals from the beginning? I really just have to chuckle when I run into people like yourself...speaking of obtuse and fetid vanity...
that is until your friend puts a hit out on me I guess...silly browser....seems to work for your post though, I guess I was just being clever after all...
wow, you must have no life whatsoever. I don't see the apostrophes because they are a DIFFERENT character, and I'm a pompous asshole. But then, he wasn't being impolite in the least towards me in his own ignorance, was he? And posting as a Coward? Figures...
I guess I simply forgot what objective meant, or what's the opposite of narrow-minded? I guess I've been reading too much Slashdot.
Oh, and did I miss the link-to-Slashdot game? Or do you just assume everyone else is as functionally retarded as you seem to be?
When it's the not the difference between seeing ' and . Then yes, you can call me the word of the day that your probably had no idea the meaning of prior to a few hours ago...
try it in hex, or another browser...92 and 27 are hexadecimal characters. On is an apostrophe, one is not. The original post used 92, which wasn't showing up as a 27 (believe it or not). Try it out yourself and then pat yourself on the back for being one of the 'smart kids'. Good job.
and which part of I can't find any "it's" in the post above do you not grasp?
Hint: Can't = Can not as in, I can not see any instance of "it's" in the post above. Or if you'd prefer, I do not see any instance of "it's" in the post above.
Perhaps if you use a bit of an open mind and some thought...you could check the original post with the 'apostrophes' in it and understand a bit of the reasoning behind my reply. Perhaps the mod will be able to see how it is certainly far from redundant as well...but then again, perhaps that would be asking too much of/.
obviously you didn't get the sarcasm, I forgot to add the tags for you...
If you knew how to speak/write English, then you would know that "it's" is a contraction for "it is" (see my previous post), so how does "We need it is light" sound like correct grammar to you ?
Not being able to edit posts was part of my point too, clearly the post I was replying to was idiotic...I must say the same to you as well as my response obvious went far above your head. english grammar impaired or just don't believe me?
A tool is a tool. Processors, software, hammers and blenders and lightbulbs and all that. If we let ourselves be hindered by property in the intellectual realm (information should be free!) we will see one person with shovels, selling them for an outrageous price, when we could all benefit from the swift proliferation of useful technology!
This is an age-old question. Is it better to offer promises of profit (even only for a few years before a patent runs out) for my ideas and ingeniuty? Or is it better to take my idea and give me nothing for it and hope I will keep thinking of new and better ideas?
Phrased like that, I think it's hard to see which way will yield a higher quantity of 'useful technology'. As for the 'swift proliferation'...thats why patents don't last forever, think generic drugs. They are enticed with profits for ~14 yrs? for thinking of new drugs, but the consumer benefits from generic drugs after a time. I guess it's all about compromise...
i don't think that would be a presumption at all...but since you're posting this response, I'll assume you're one of those people that tries to sound smarter than you are (read sig again). Think about it;)
and the term patent infringement came about based on the priciple of theft. good job. You might want to work on your ethics a bit if you think stealing is always okay...
if you reverse-engineer it and make an exact copy (obviously it will work, since mine already does - the one your reverse-engineering) then yes, you have stolen something. Patent law draws the line where you make a significant functional change to my design (even if you reverse-engineer it first) or improve it in a noticable way...you're talking about an exact copy (stealing) patent law allows for you to make a better one and patent that idea (not stealing) since it still took some intelligence on your part.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, I've never written any program and payed attention to syntax,etc... and I certainly can't tell the difference between that and posting a comment on Slashdot.
Of course, I guess that's why I said 'humans' and not 'compilers'.
Of course there are drawbacks in defeating it, and defeating it wasn't what I was referring to. Not to mention a lot of methods to defeat the Right-Click don't work at all, and even more only work on specific types of browsers. Perhaps you should have said "that's *easy* to defeat" ?
Most people don't know how to read through the source to find the "real" image, most people don't know how the find the file in their browser cache... and even the ones that do might not think it's worth the trouble.
I'd have to guess the people that do will just Right-Click and Save As...
That's the point, the FCC is making it bad ($11,000 fine) for people to spam people's phones (phonenumber@). I can only assume that is why this list is so heavy with domains that offer SMS.
I'm beginning to understand why this list is moving so slowly...
You know, they say humans are one of few (possibly only) animals that can interpret misspelled words and things as they should be almost without any trouble at all. Something to do with intelligence.
But then, apparently some people feel better about themselves to jump on a typo and say the person is dumb. Careless, maybe. But what does a typo have to do with grammar?! I realize it's a recurring theme here, but seriously...you'd think we could figure out the difference by now? Humans (are supposed to) have a natural ability and drive to categorize things too, I guess it goes hand in hand with intelligence though...
Well, scratch the first part. But I think the rest of my explanation still makes sense. Sorry about that. And since they can't possibly expect to keep track of who the subscribers are giving permission to, I'd assume you will have to give permission to allow all spam to you (since they would not be able to properly filter it) if your consent is given for some. But perhaps that's still a bit optimistic of me...
Your post is unclear to me.
You quote the same exact phrase (in italics) but have trouble understanding it one time and not the other.
Please understand the phrase, "to which telemarketers". The listed domains are not the ones sending the e-mail, they are the ones TO WHICH it is being illicitly (illegally) sent TO. If you continue past the headline and RTFA, you'll see it seems as though the listed domains will be held responsible for allowing the e-mails to be transmitted (think pass through). I believe that is a correct understanding, and hopefully what you were trying to ask in the first place.
mod article +5 Informative!
I guess not everyone read "per violation" as "per illegal email" or "per offense" (i.e. per violation of the law to which TFA is referring).
If you were clearifying the text above, well...I couldn't find the where it said total at all
I guess I'm still having rendering problems
I hope you mean you get 6.5 down and 1mbps up. Otherwise that would just be silly unless you're running a huge pr0n distribution cluster.
And since most people don't talk about transfer size in bits, I don't think you needed to clearify. Did you move that 400GB up or down, though?
Does hypocrit mean anything to you? Who are you? Why are you talking about me as though we've been pals from the beginning? I really just have to chuckle when I run into people like yourself...speaking of obtuse and fetid vanity...
that is until your friend puts a hit out on me I guess...silly browser....seems to work for your post though, I guess I was just being clever after all...
wow, you must have no life whatsoever. I don't see the apostrophes because they are a DIFFERENT character, and I'm a pompous asshole. But then, he wasn't being impolite in the least towards me in his own ignorance, was he? And posting as a Coward? Figures...
I guess I simply forgot what objective meant, or what's the opposite of narrow-minded? I guess I've been reading too much Slashdot.
Oh, and did I miss the link-to-Slashdot game? Or do you just assume everyone else is as functionally retarded as you seem to be?
When it's the not the difference between seeing ' and .
Then yes, you can call me the word of the day that your probably had no idea the meaning of prior to a few hours ago...
Yes AC, very good. Do you know what hexadecimal is? Do you use vi or notepad? I know these are tough concepts, for you and spuzzzzzzz alike... ;)
try it in hex, or another browser...92 and 27 are hexadecimal characters. On is an apostrophe, one is not. The original post used 92, which wasn't showing up as a 27 (believe it or not). Try it out yourself and then pat yourself on the back for being one of the 'smart kids'. Good job.
Here's one to try real slow for me, you seem to be a little behind the ball, my friend.
Is 92 the same as 27? Seriously?
92==27? True or false?
92!=27? True of false?
Perhaps you need another hint...?
and which part of I can't find any "it's" in the post above do you not grasp?
/.
Hint: Can't = Can not
as in, I can not see any instance of "it's" in the post above. Or if you'd prefer, I do not see any instance of "it's" in the post above.
Perhaps if you use a bit of an open mind and some thought...you could check the original post with the 'apostrophes' in it and understand a bit of the reasoning behind my reply. Perhaps the mod will be able to see how it is certainly far from redundant as well...but then again, perhaps that would be asking too much of
obviously you didn't get the sarcasm, I forgot to add the tags for you...
If you knew how to speak/write English, then you would know that "it's" is a contraction for "it is" (see my previous post), so how does "We need it is light" sound like correct grammar to you ?
Not being able to edit posts was part of my point too, clearly the post I was replying to was idiotic...I must say the same to you as well as my response obvious went far above your head. english grammar impaired or just don't believe me?
what?!
it's = it is
its = possessive
I admit I can't find any "it's" in the post above, so either you don't know English too good or they changed their post....
A tool is a tool. Processors, software, hammers and blenders and lightbulbs and all that. If we let ourselves be hindered by property in the intellectual realm (information should be free!) we will see one person with shovels, selling them for an outrageous price, when we could all benefit from the swift proliferation of useful technology!
This is an age-old question. Is it better to offer promises of profit (even only for a few years before a patent runs out) for my ideas and ingeniuty? Or is it better to take my idea and give me nothing for it and hope I will keep thinking of new and better ideas?
Phrased like that, I think it's hard to see which way will yield a higher quantity of 'useful technology'. As for the 'swift proliferation'...thats why patents don't last forever, think generic drugs. They are enticed with profits for ~14 yrs? for thinking of new drugs, but the consumer benefits from generic drugs after a time. I guess it's all about compromise...
i don't think that would be a presumption at all...but since you're posting this response, I'll assume you're one of those people that tries to sound smarter than you are (read sig again). Think about it ;)
if you want legal advice, i'd talk to a patent lawyer...not a slashdot poster. Just a suggestion.
Where did people come up with this concept that you can steal something when you don't deprive someone of it?
read own sig.
and the term patent infringement came about based on the priciple of theft. good job. You might want to work on your ethics a bit if you think stealing is always okay...
if you reverse-engineer it and make an exact copy (obviously it will work, since mine already does - the one your reverse-engineering) then yes, you have stolen something. Patent law draws the line where you make a significant functional change to my design (even if you reverse-engineer it first) or improve it in a noticable way...you're talking about an exact copy (stealing) patent law allows for you to make a better one and patent that idea (not stealing) since it still took some intelligence on your part.