IANAL or American, but could you not sue the person as a john doe and compel the publisher for the name of the source (like the RIAA's john doe lawsuits)?
The way I read the article, it means that the company (amazon, google, etc) is immune from libel just because they are the publisher. However, I didn't read anything that indicated the person who actually wrote the article is immune.
So if I say that you go around burning buildings and drowning kittens, Slashdot would be safe, but I could still be a participant in the great American sport of lawsuits.
As an additional point, why would a suicide bomber detonate in a library at night when it is probably at a lower Western infidel count than during the day?
Obviously cars and an email protocol are not exactly the same. This is called an analogy. An analogy is used to describe a situation that somebody does not understand (changing SMTP would screw over many companies) against a situation that person might understand (small vehicles would screw over tall/large people).
You see, if we forced a change from large vehicles to small vehicles, you would be unhappy. If we forced a change from SMTP to another protocol, many companies would be unhappy.
Changing to another email protocol would not be technically difficult. However, group x would likely be screwed because all of their money has been spent on writing email clients. The software writers who have written clients would be unhappy because they have to re-write their programs.
Changing to smaller vehicles would not be technically difficult, but group y would likely be screwed because all of their money has been spent in developing large vehicles, and group z (that would be you) is unable to fit in the vehicle.
Kids are still allowed safety seats. They fit in the car.
You're suggesting an email protocol change that will likely not work for everybody involved (companies who have invested in the technology). I'm suggesting forcing a smaller vehicle rule which apparently doesn't seem to work for you. To me, that is exactly the same thing. I don't want to change because it will not work for "x".
Perhaps email technology need some form of changes. Perhaps the car companies need to build a smaller vehicle with extended leg room?
You obviously got defensive towards the car change. Think someone might get defensive about an email protocol change? Perhaps you would be more cautious declaring somebody a wimp if that change directly affected you.
I'm not talking about some. I'm talking about all. Right now. No questions. All people who have ever bought a car must now trade them in for their scrap metal value.
Personally I'd prefer if SUVs disappeared. I have a long commute, so a large SUV would be a large waste of gas money.
I see... so if somebody came out with the solution to pollution problems would be to eliminate all vehicles and replace them with bikes, would you change?
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 ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) 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 ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) 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 ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) 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 ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) 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 ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) 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 ( ) 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!
Um, yeah... its just that we're putting the new cover sheet on all new TPS reports, so if you could just go ahead and remember to do that that'd be great, yeah...
I don't see how that compares. With the RIAA setup, person A is sued. Person A shared a file with person b who shared with C who shared with D.
A --> B --> C --> D
Persons B, C, and D are still open to lawsuits. Person A has no control of the actions of B, C, or D.
With an injury claim, A's action directly causes damage to B. If the loss of B causes side effects to occur to C or D, then there might be reason for a claim. However, the root cause is the actions of A. With a file transfer, once A transfers the file to B, it is up to B to do something with it (share, remove, etc). B now has control.
Perl vs Perl vs Perl compares well to VB vs VBScript vs J++ vs VB.Net vs C# vs whatever is
next
Comparing VB to VBScript to VB.NET is like comparing apples vs a small truck vs a furry animal vs Slashdot's OMG Ponies site. They have nothing to do with each other. VBScript is a client side scripting language. VB.NET is an Object oriented language. Much like Java != JavaScript.
VB6 is completely different than VB.Net aside from a few syntax similarities. It was a necessary change to provide for threading and the entire world of objects.
You can be a bad programmer in any language. A lot of vb6 programmers fall in that category. You can also be a good programmer too. If you can program in Java, you can program.net in any language variation it supports. A good programmer should be able to pick up a new syntax in less than a month.
having to re-do all of my work in a slightly different language every 3 to 18 months
Updating from.NET 1.1 to.NET 2.0 required no changes for anything I've done. Many things haven't been updated because there is no reason to upgrade.
A good programmer shouldn't be limited to a single language.
1. The solution generally assumes that everyone opts-in. This is impossible. Not everyone is going to buy a new device to assist in traffic tracking. If an existing device, not everyone is going to have that device.
My impression of the technology is no new devices need to be bought by the cell owner. If anything, it would be at the cell company. I believe it uses signal strength triangulation to determine position.
2. The tracking accuracy of the device or measurement system is poor. Look at this article. 330 feet? In places where traffic is congested, 330 feet can cover 6 streets.
It may not be 100% accurate, but if you watch only major routes, it could be useful as a general indicator of traffic. It at minimum gives you general assertions of "xyz area is backed up: avoid area".
3. Who is going to pay for this? Fine, you could technically get some traffic statistics if your device magically worked and everyone participated. Is it actually a sustainable business? Doubt it.
The TFA says it would be marketed free to cell companies on a profit-sharing scheme. The sustainable business is the value added features.
4. How much is it going to cost? We are talking a lot of bandwidth here to be getting enough data (and through low/expensive bandwidth mediums like cell networks, et cetera), and a lot of processing of that data against geographic databases to be able to do any meaningful data analysis.
See response to 1. I believe data is gathered at the tower, so we aren't using over-air traffic.
5. So let's say you took care of the technical hurdles and had a lot of data and processed it and you had a great map of traffic in the local metro region. You are now parked on your ass in the operation center viewing your beautiful map, which is great and all, except you aren't driving and everyone who is driving has no idea how beautiful your map is. How are you going to get this information to people who are actually, you know, in traffic?
How do people check traffic reports today? I check before I go or sometimes by radio. For en-route reports (ie value added feature), it would be easy to have users register on a web site with their normal daily route and get SMS updates if traffic problems occur.
6. As a follow up of (5), let's say that you had a little printer in everyone's car and printed out your beautiful map right to their passenger seat. They pick it up, and while they are googling at its beauty and trying to locate where they are on the map, they plow right into the back of oil truck, explode, and die. Thanks, you just caused a huge backup, asshat. Assuming you get the information to the drivers, how are they going to be able to interpret the data with minimal attention while they are, you know, driving?
Lets say there are magical pixies that fly around your car protecting you from accidents. Car distractions are always a problem, but I think the most likely usage of this technology will be a pre-trip route check much like you can do now with many TV or radio stations.
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 ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) 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 ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) 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 ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) 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 ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (x) Outlook (x) It is possible to break CAPCHA with a script (OCR)
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 ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) 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 ( ) 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!
Re:glad to see someone else had the same problem
on
Games and Fear
·
· Score: 1
So you were 12 and played a game rated M(17+)? Somebody's parents didn't check the rating.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL or American, but could you not sue the person as a john doe and compel the publisher for the name of the source (like the RIAA's john doe lawsuits)?
The way I read the article, it means that the company (amazon, google, etc) is immune from libel just because they are the publisher. However, I didn't read anything that indicated the person who actually wrote the article is immune.
So if I say that you go around burning buildings and drowning kittens, Slashdot would be safe, but I could still be a participant in the great American sport of lawsuits.
As an additional point, why would a suicide bomber detonate in a library at night when it is probably at a lower Western infidel count than during the day?
Obviously cars and an email protocol are not exactly the same. This is called an analogy. An analogy is used to describe a situation that somebody does not understand (changing SMTP would screw over many companies) against a situation that person might understand (small vehicles would screw over tall/large people).
You see, if we forced a change from large vehicles to small vehicles, you would be unhappy. If we forced a change from SMTP to another protocol, many companies would be unhappy.
Changing to another email protocol would not be technically difficult. However, group x would likely be screwed because all of their money has been spent on writing email clients. The software writers who have written clients would be unhappy because they have to re-write their programs.
Changing to smaller vehicles would not be technically difficult, but group y would likely be screwed because all of their money has been spent in developing large vehicles, and group z (that would be you) is unable to fit in the vehicle.
Kids are still allowed safety seats. They fit in the car.
You're suggesting an email protocol change that will likely not work for everybody involved (companies who have invested in the technology). I'm suggesting forcing a smaller vehicle rule which apparently doesn't seem to work for you. To me, that is exactly the same thing. I don't want to change because it will not work for "x".
Perhaps email technology need some form of changes. Perhaps the car companies need to build a smaller vehicle with extended leg room?
You obviously got defensive towards the car change. Think someone might get defensive about an email protocol change? Perhaps you would be more cautious declaring somebody a wimp if that change directly affected you.
Ah.... The "we can't change anything because it is too hard waaaaaaa" post.
Thank you for being a wimp.
I'm not talking about some. I'm talking about all. Right now. No questions. All people who have ever bought a car must now trade them in for their scrap metal value. Personally I'd prefer if SUVs disappeared. I have a long commute, so a large SUV would be a large waste of gas money.
I see... so if somebody came out with the solution to pollution problems would be to eliminate all vehicles and replace them with bikes, would you change?
(hint) (x) Huge existing investment in cars
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) 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
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) 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
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) 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
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) 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
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) 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
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) 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
( ) 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!
When we see smaller sharks, of course.
Um, yeah... its just that we're putting the new cover sheet on all new TPS reports, so if you could just go ahead and remember to do that that'd be great, yeah...
Did you get the memo?
It looks like you are entering my firing range. Would you like help with this feature?
Try using the "Damien" voice from cepstral for this robot. Then give it some red LED eyes.
As for hacking the robot... do you really want to get that close?
I don't see how that compares. With the RIAA setup, person A is sued. Person A shared a file with person b who shared with C who shared with D.
A --> B --> C --> D
Persons B, C, and D are still open to lawsuits. Person A has no control of the actions of B, C, or D.
With an injury claim, A's action directly causes damage to B. If the loss of B causes side effects to occur to C or D, then there might be reason for a claim. However, the root cause is the actions of A. With a file transfer, once A transfers the file to B, it is up to B to do something with it (share, remove, etc). B now has control.
become a first post?
VB6 is completely different than VB.Net aside from a few syntax similarities. It was a necessary change to provide for threading and the entire world of objects.
You can be a bad programmer in any language. A lot of vb6 programmers fall in that category. You can also be a good programmer too. If you can program in Java, you can program
A good programmer shouldn't be limited to a single language.
The profits they make on pre-installed Vista PCs will be balanced by the reduction of profits from pre-installed XP home machines.
Um.... so if the line fails, where does it get its power from to notify of the failure?
My impression of the technology is no new devices need to be bought by the cell owner. If anything, it would be at the cell company. I believe it uses signal strength triangulation to determine position.
It may not be 100% accurate, but if you watch only major routes, it could be useful as a general indicator of traffic. It at minimum gives you general assertions of "xyz area is backed up: avoid area".
The TFA says it would be marketed free to cell companies on a profit-sharing scheme. The sustainable business is the value added features.
See response to 1. I believe data is gathered at the tower, so we aren't using over-air traffic.
How do people check traffic reports today? I check before I go or sometimes by radio. For en-route reports (ie value added feature), it would be easy to have users register on a web site with their normal daily route and get SMS updates if traffic problems occur.
Lets say there are magical pixies that fly around your car protecting you from accidents. Car distractions are always a problem, but I think the most likely usage of this technology will be a pre-trip route check much like you can do now with many TV or radio stations.
Then Cats set us up the bomb
But that's okay
The Zigs for justice
are on their way.
Considering the nature of most of those pages, it would have to be sewage tubes.
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) 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
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) 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
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) 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
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) 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
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook
(x) It is possible to break CAPCHA with a script (OCR)
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
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) 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
( ) 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!
So you were 12 and played a game rated M(17+)? Somebody's parents didn't check the rating.