The "house" is my computer, which I do indeed own. The ISP provides the road, and finding out about who the ISP won't allow on the roads can be like pulling teeth.
However, it is a private road, not a public one. It's a bit like living in a gated community. If you don't like the fact that they don't let suspicious people in, you have to live somewhere else.
No, you're incorrect. If I go through an ISP that is using SPEWS to block e-mails, I do not have the option to 'let someone in' from the SPEWS list if I want to.
The "owner of the house" is the ISP operator. You can think of yourself as a tenant. You can't tell the owner who to admit, but you can look for somewhere else to live if you don't like the rules of the house.
No, it's the equivalent of trying to go from the slum to the downtown area.
Not quite. It's more the equivalent of trying to go into somebody's private home, who says "I'm not letting you into my house, because my neighbor down the street told me that he was robbed by somebody who looked a bit like you." You may not like it, it may even be unfair--but it's still his home, and you have no right to go into it unless he chooses to let you.
Black lists are a form of informational terrorism, no more, no less.
The term "informational terrorism" is an idiotic oxymoron, and trivializes the sufferings of real terror victims such as those who died or lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. Nobody is terrified--placed in fear of life and limb--because some individuals and firms have access to information regarding suspected sources of spam.
Not quite correct. They decide to list, and delist, people based on their criteria.
They are information providers, and the only thing they decide is what information to provide. Their clients are individuals and companies who are entitled to use that information as they choose fit. Those who use it do so because they find it valuable. So valuable that unethical individuals are now going to great lengths to try deny the list's clients access to that information.
The problem with blacklists is that they decide that it is more important to thow the baby out with the bath watter than it is to see if the baby is clean.
Blackhole lists don't decide anything. They provide information which individuals and private businesses are entitled to use as they see fit. Clearly, some unethical individuals are going to great effort to censor that information and deny the rest of us access to it. Which suggests that such lists are an important and valuable information source.
Do we care whether it is spammers? Clearly, anybody who would participate in a DDOS, which involves taking over the computers of innocent people and using them in an illegal enterprise, is on the same moral and ethical level as the spammers. If blackhole lists are inconveniencing that kind of people, that's another point in their favor!
I sit at a desk in front of a computer all day at work. It's not what I want to do with my leisure time. I want to lounge. Mice are not lounge-friendly. I want games that do not require a mouse to play enjoyably or competitively.
Doesn't have high-resolution > 1024x768. And even if it did, that doesn't mean much to people who don't have HDTV.
I'll shell out for a high-resolution screen for my work. It doesn't have to be all that big, since it sits right on my desk, so the cost is not excessive. But lounging at home, I want a nice, large screen, and I'm not prepared to pay thousands of dollars. So I want games that are designed to be playable on a standard TV.
3. You are locked into the game...no modding.
I'd rather play a new game than a mod of an old one. There are more good games than I have time for, anyway.
4. You can't always freely connect with other large groups over the net without using a system that was developed to monitor your gameplay...like Microsoft's.
There is nothing confidential about my gameplay, and I want the manufacturer monitoring gameplay to weed out cheaters.
5. How about setting up a 32 player server with a console?
I don't want to set up a server to play a game. Let the manufacturer run the servers.
6. Ever try to backup your console game CD?
Game CDs fail so rarely (actually, I've never had it happen), and are so cheap, that backups are not cost-effective. Unless you use them for frisbees, the cost of replacing any game that goes bad is going to be less than the cost of media for backing them all up.
7. Can you upgrade you console system without throwing out the entire box?
Can buy an entirely new system for the cost of a PC upgrade? Can you be confident that every game that you buy for your PC will run perfectly without a hardware game.
8. Why do you say consoles are easier? PC game interfaces are exactly the same (on screen configuration and controls)?
Unfortunately, so many PC game developers think that because they have a mouse and keyboard available, they should use them. And I'm back at the damned desk again.
9. Consoles are sold separately from PCs. An investment in a console is not an investment in my PC. Why would I do that?
I invest in things that become more valuable over time. A PC is not an investment.
Manufacturers like Dell tend to use the compiler that produces the fastest benchmarks. Sometimes, that is a compiler that isn't really reliable enough to be used for anything other than benchmarks. It's worth noting that when Craig Hunter at NASA tried to compare the G5 against other processors, he found that some of the compilers that produced the fastest code (such as the Intel compiler) failed to produce correct results.
Under OS X, the benefits of dual processors are quite evident. I find that a dual-450 MHz G4 Mac "feels" decidedly more snappy than my 800 MHz G4 Powerbook. It didn't seem nearly as fast under OS9; OS X seems to do a very good job of distributing the load over two processors.
Ok, as far as I am concerned, if you personally want to use a spam block list, great. Have fun. I have no problem with that.
And I am also entitled to choose an ISP that does it for me.
If an ISP wants to use an IP blacklist, fine, but they need to take responsibility for its use, use it in an intelligent way, and really consider the quality of the list that they are using.
I think that the sole arbiter for whether an ISP's mail acceptance policies are reasonable should be its customers. If it wants to accept only email from IP addresses that end in an even number, and if that is OK with its customers, then it should be entitled to do so. I don't care about your business costs. You are not entitled to send any email to me, unless I choose to accept it.
My point exactly. You hit me to get me to complain. Did you ever think that I don't want to take that active of a role in your war?
I'm sorry, are you saying that I am "hitting" you if I choose not to receive email from you (which is what I am doing when I contract with an ISP that uses a blacklist)? It seems to me that I am entitled to decide who I listen to.
All true, however, in fighting disease, your mental condition plays a critical role. If you have experience fighting disease already (chicken pox, the flu, and other regular diseases kids get, and the ones that adults get), then when you get something like cancer, you're mentally more suited to fighting, and more likely to win.
Actually, there is little evidence to support the notion that "mental condition" plays a major role in fighting diseases like cancer. Probably just wishful thinking.
Re:So the highest bidder get's to spam?
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
"What? Our ads are being sent out through illegal means? I am shocked, shocked! Of course, we don't send out ads ourselves; we use a subcontractor. We had know way of knowing that they were breaking the law. They'll be fired at once!"
When I was a baby and a kid, my parents let me walk on the floor naked, put things in my mouth and all things that most parents shriek at.
One proposed explanation for the rising incidence of asthma is that parents don't let their kids do this so much anymore (or they clean their floors with disinfectants). The notion is that your immune system is evolved to deal with a certain level of attack. If it doesn't find enough invaders, it "figures" that it just isn't trying hard enough, and cranks up the volume until it starts going crazy over every mite and speck of pollen.
This is definitely an outrageous statement coming from a professional. Consider that viruses that humans get as opposed to computer viruses, are not created. Now we all know that some have been created, but not to the extent of computer viruses. How responsible would it be for the Center for Disease Control to create viruses unleash them with the monicker "Hey we did it for your immune system. Is this guy insane.
Oddly enough, that's exactly how polio was wiped out in the US. The "live" polio vaccine is actually contagious. In many respects, it is analogous to WELCHIA, an infectious patch for the MSBLASTER vulnerability.
First, in the case of virii and bacteria (forgetting for the moment that 95% of bacteria are beneficial, but anti-bacterial soap doesn't know that), our bodies do get stronger fighting them. Without them, would our bodies be strong enough to fight off other things?
It is misleading to think of the body getting "stronger" by fighting viruses. It's not like lifting weights. Immunity is fairly selective for a particular microorganism. So fighting a particular type of virus just makes you better at fighting that kind of virus. There are a few cases where there is cross-immunity, and you can develop an immunity to a dangerous virus by fighting a less-dangerous one, the classic example being smallpox and vaccinia (cowpox). But being vaccinated against smallpox won't help you at all in fighting influenza.
One thing I liked about Signs is that it took the old conventions of the monster movie--down to the monsters in obvious rubber suits--and used it to tell an original and effective story.
I'm a professional scientist but I'm more pissed off by the "let's find a plot hole in a movie just to prove that I am smart"-people than the actual plot holes.
I don't mind exaggerations for dramatic effect. I don't blink at non-parabolic trajectories in fight scenes or starships that whoosh. I don't mind honest mistakes, either. Heck, Larry Niven thought a Ringworld would be stable. On the other hand, all too often there are errors that are there for no reason, but just seem to reflect a general contempt for the intelligence of the audience. They aren't there for any particular reason, but simply because nobody bothered to look it up.
I saw this as a satirical nod to old science fiction movies in which the monsters/aliens were so often vulnerable to something ubiquitous. I remember one (I forget which) in which the monsters were in fact done in by salt water.
The trouble with 2001 is that it was extremely boring. I very rarely fall asleep during a movie, but that one took the cake. All I remember about that movie was classical music and that it made me fall asleep 5 minutes into it. Horrible, horrible film.
Well, I was rapt all the way through. Of course, that was in Cinerama. And the front row.
My favorite rationalization is that we are not hearing the sound of the explosion at all; we are "hearing" its EM pulse, perhaps picked up by our ship's sensors, and automatically translated into an audio signal by our ship's computers to make full use of the bridge crew's senses. The "Insultingly Stupid Physics" site complains that the sound arrives simultaneously with the image of the explosion--I'd actually have more of a problem with this, because then I couldn't tell myself, "It's not really sound."
Actually, the remarkable thing about the Hindenburg "disaster" was that it wasn't that much of a disaster by modern standards. Most of the people on board survived. There were only 36 casualties
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're incorrect. If I go through an ISP that is using SPEWS to block e-mails, I do not have the option to 'let someone in' from the SPEWS list if I want to.
The "owner of the house" is the ISP operator. You can think of yourself as a tenant. You can't tell the owner who to admit, but you can look for somewhere else to live if you don't like the rules of the house.
Not quite. It's more the equivalent of trying to go into somebody's private home, who says "I'm not letting you into my house, because my neighbor down the street told me that he was robbed by somebody who looked a bit like you." You may not like it, it may even be unfair--but it's still his home, and you have no right to go into it unless he chooses to let you.
The term "informational terrorism" is an idiotic oxymoron, and trivializes the sufferings of real terror victims such as those who died or lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. Nobody is terrified--placed in fear of life and limb--because some individuals and firms have access to information regarding suspected sources of spam.
They are information providers, and the only thing they decide is what information to provide. Their clients are individuals and companies who are entitled to use that information as they choose fit. Those who use it do so because they find it valuable. So valuable that unethical individuals are now going to great lengths to try deny the list's clients access to that information.
Blackhole lists don't decide anything. They provide information which individuals and private businesses are entitled to use as they see fit. Clearly, some unethical individuals are going to great effort to censor that information and deny the rest of us access to it. Which suggests that such lists are an important and valuable information source.
Do we care whether it is spammers? Clearly, anybody who would participate in a DDOS, which involves taking over the computers of innocent people and using them in an illegal enterprise, is on the same moral and ethical level as the spammers. If blackhole lists are inconveniencing that kind of people, that's another point in their favor!
I sit at a desk in front of a computer all day at work. It's not what I want to do with my leisure time. I want to lounge. Mice are not lounge-friendly. I want games that do not require a mouse to play enjoyably or competitively.
Doesn't have high-resolution > 1024x768. And even if it did, that doesn't mean much to people who don't have HDTV.
I'll shell out for a high-resolution screen for my work. It doesn't have to be all that big, since it sits right on my desk, so the cost is not excessive. But lounging at home, I want a nice, large screen, and I'm not prepared to pay thousands of dollars. So I want games that are designed to be playable on a standard TV.
3. You are locked into the game...no modding.
I'd rather play a new game than a mod of an old one. There are more good games than I have time for, anyway.
4. You can't always freely connect with other large groups over the net without using a system that was developed to monitor your gameplay...like Microsoft's.
There is nothing confidential about my gameplay, and I want the manufacturer monitoring gameplay to weed out cheaters.
5. How about setting up a 32 player server with a console?
I don't want to set up a server to play a game. Let the manufacturer run the servers.
6. Ever try to backup your console game CD?
Game CDs fail so rarely (actually, I've never had it happen), and are so cheap, that backups are not cost-effective. Unless you use them for frisbees, the cost of replacing any game that goes bad is going to be less than the cost of media for backing them all up.
7. Can you upgrade you console system without throwing out the entire box?
Can buy an entirely new system for the cost of a PC upgrade? Can you be confident that every game that you buy for your PC will run perfectly without a hardware game.
8. Why do you say consoles are easier? PC game interfaces are exactly the same (on screen configuration and controls)?
Unfortunately, so many PC game developers think that because they have a mouse and keyboard available, they should use them. And I'm back at the damned desk again.
9. Consoles are sold separately from PCs. An investment in a console is not an investment in my PC. Why would I do that?
I invest in things that become more valuable over time. A PC is not an investment.
Manufacturers like Dell tend to use the compiler that produces the fastest benchmarks. Sometimes, that is a compiler that isn't really reliable enough to be used for anything other than benchmarks. It's worth noting that when Craig Hunter at NASA tried to compare the G5 against other processors, he found that some of the compilers that produced the fastest code (such as the Intel compiler) failed to produce correct results.
And you always have more than one program running; minimally, the Finder and various OS services.
Under OS X, the benefits of dual processors are quite evident. I find that a dual-450 MHz G4 Mac "feels" decidedly more snappy than my 800 MHz G4 Powerbook. It didn't seem nearly as fast under OS9; OS X seems to do a very good job of distributing the load over two processors.
And I am also entitled to choose an ISP that does it for me.
If an ISP wants to use an IP blacklist, fine, but they need to take responsibility for its use, use it in an intelligent way, and really consider the quality of the list that they are using.
I think that the sole arbiter for whether an ISP's mail acceptance policies are reasonable should be its customers. If it wants to accept only email from IP addresses that end in an even number, and if that is OK with its customers, then it should be entitled to do so. I don't care about your business costs. You are not entitled to send any email to me, unless I choose to accept it.
I'm sorry, are you saying that I am "hitting" you if I choose not to receive email from you (which is what I am doing when I contract with an ISP that uses a blacklist)? It seems to me that I am entitled to decide who I listen to.
Actually, there is little evidence to support the notion that "mental condition" plays a major role in fighting diseases like cancer. Probably just wishful thinking.
"What? Our ads are being sent out through illegal means? I am shocked, shocked! Of course, we don't send out ads ourselves; we use a subcontractor. We had know way of knowing that they were breaking the law. They'll be fired at once!"
(and rehired under a different name).
One proposed explanation for the rising incidence of asthma is that parents don't let their kids do this so much anymore (or they clean their floors with disinfectants). The notion is that your immune system is evolved to deal with a certain level of attack. If it doesn't find enough invaders, it "figures" that it just isn't trying hard enough, and cranks up the volume until it starts going crazy over every mite and speck of pollen.
It is misleading to think of the body getting "stronger" by fighting viruses. It's not like lifting weights. Immunity is fairly selective for a particular microorganism. So fighting a particular type of virus just makes you better at fighting that kind of virus. There are a few cases where there is cross-immunity, and you can develop an immunity to a dangerous virus by fighting a less-dangerous one, the classic example being smallpox and vaccinia (cowpox). But being vaccinated against smallpox won't help you at all in fighting influenza.
One thing I liked about Signs is that it took the old conventions of the monster movie--down to the monsters in obvious rubber suits--and used it to tell an original and effective story.
I don't mind exaggerations for dramatic effect. I don't blink at non-parabolic trajectories in fight scenes or starships that whoosh. I don't mind honest mistakes, either. Heck, Larry Niven thought a Ringworld would be stable. On the other hand, all too often there are errors that are there for no reason, but just seem to reflect a general contempt for the intelligence of the audience. They aren't there for any particular reason, but simply because nobody bothered to look it up.
I saw this as a satirical nod to old science fiction movies in which the monsters/aliens were so often vulnerable to something ubiquitous. I remember one (I forget which) in which the monsters were in fact done in by salt water.
My favorite rationalization is that we are not hearing the sound of the explosion at all; we are "hearing" its EM pulse, perhaps picked up by our ship's sensors, and automatically translated into an audio signal by our ship's computers to make full use of the bridge crew's senses. The "Insultingly Stupid Physics" site complains that the sound arrives simultaneously with the image of the explosion--I'd actually have more of a problem with this, because then I couldn't tell myself, "It's not really sound."
Actually, the remarkable thing about the Hindenburg "disaster" was that it wasn't that much of a disaster by modern standards. Most of the people on board survived. There were only 36 casualties
Fortunately, gasoline molecules are rather big, so it's not all that hard to seal them away from oxygen.