Have any of you considered that the Mossad has plants working AT Google
Of course, when you realize that every single Israeli citizen old enough to serve is drafted into the military and is in the active reserves for the remaining time, you should no longer be surprised to have employed a member of the Mossad. You should expect it to happen.
However, the likelihood of the Mossad working on a low-level Internet slander case is one I'll leave up for debate.
From my experience of flying kites above 500 feet (perfectly legal in the U.S. as long as the kite is 5 lbs. or less and not a hazard) the wind doesn't die. I had more problems with the line and structural integrity of the kite. The line may break, the kite may collapse, or the winds may start blowing the wrong way long before you have to worry about a perfectly good kite dipping into the water.
It's not as if you couldn't just RETURN the ones that are non-certified and taken your business elsewhere like every other rational consumer.
It looks like that's exactly what California is trying to do. Plus, it also costs the counties and state money on top of the original price to replace these machines. It seems reasonable.
I have. I couldn't email several important people because their ISPs started using various RBLs.
I've been in your shoes with large e-mail service providers. One in particular (let's call it Company Y) treated my e-mail in each of the following ways over the course of a year: spam box (slightly tolerable), blackhole (never got delivered), and just plain rejected at the MTA level. I made an effort to contact them about whitelisting my domain (as I was not on any known blacklist), but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. However, just recently, I mistakenly used a person's address at Company Y, and it actually landed in the non-spam inbox.
Maybe a few things (in aggregate with other people) caused the problem to be solved: 1) I contacted Company Y and tried not to be an ass. 2) I started directing my friends and family to use the competitor (let's call it Company G), as I wasn't having any problems there. My friends and family listened to me (or at least considered it) because I gave a reasoned explanation, and I tried not to be an ass. 3) I mentioned my problem to an employee (friend of a friend) at Company Y (although this employee did not work with e-mail), gave a reasoned explanation, and I tried not to be an ass. Who knows if any water cooler talk got to the right person.. but it couldn't hurt to try.
Over the years, I've had my domains hosted on various ISPs, but in each case, I've made sure that I was allowed to have a server. In the few cases I wasn't, I had the server hosted elsewhere. I'm not saying you're running a mail server where you're not supposed to (I have no idea), but e-mail coming from a dynamic IP address that is allocated to a provider that prohibits servers is just asking to be flat-out rejected. I see too many attempts from dial-up and home cable providers with obviously bogus sender envelope information to know that this general categorization holds true. If you have a provider that allows e-mail servers, and you're still having problems with certain ISPs/e-mail service providers, and you're sure you're not on any blacklist (try http://www.dnsstuff.com/ ), then try contacting the ISP like I mentioned above. If the ISP is not willing to help you, there are other e-mail provider services you could recommend to your friends and relatives.
I could go on and on, but it boils down to trying everything you think is possible before you give up. What are the particulars of your domain?
Every time I see these arguments against spam blacklists, I roll my eyes. On my mailserver, I've carefully selected blacklists that either periodically scan suspected hosts for open proxies or infections, or simply list based on a spam coming from that IP address. And in all cases, these selected blacklists allow quick delisting.
True, the blacklists have blocked some of a large e-mail provider's servers (because spam was indeed sent from those compromised servers), which has inconvenienced me, but at the same time, the IP addresses were delisted quickly, and only relisted again because the e-mail provider *did not clean up the servers*. Only when the servers were cleaned up did those IP addresses stop getting listed.
I use blacklists because I don't want to tie up resources with filtering, nor do I feel I should accept the bandwidth costs on my end. Blacklists aren't the only method I use, but all methods I do use end up dropping the connection, instead of accepting everything and sorting it out later, of which the latter is a very bad practice. Though I am a small guppy in a very large ocean, my server rejects 7 to 12 thousand connections a month, with maybe less than 5 e-mails a year ever being false-positives for spam. And today I get between 3 and 6 spams a day that slip through to my public, well-known e-mail address inboxes which have been around since '99.
Say what you will about blacklists, but they work, and they work well. I don't need to receive, store, and filter all that spam. If I did start up a filter, I'd still keep the blacklists since they would greatly reduce the load, and I have several years of logs and e-mails to back up that assertion.
The "article" submitter is only trying to drum up hits to his blog. When it's this obvious, I don't even bother clicking through.
Perhaps it wouldn't solve everything, but IMHO not directly linking the submitter's name to a non-slashdot URL would greatly limit the article spam on here. And, of course, not letting someone use slashdot to blatantly toot his own horn would limit the practice further.
On March 4, 1966, in an interview printed in the London Evening Standard, John Lennon made the following statement:
"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
The statement, being part of a two page interview, went unnoticed in Britain at the time.
John had said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus meaning that Christianity (and religion in general) were getting so weak and unpopular that a rock 'n' roll group (the Beatles) were more popular than it at the time. He just said it as an example to make his point, that Christianity was not popular among young people, and he certainly didn't want to compare the Beatles with Jesus or to show off himself as being better or greater than Jesus. But when the above statement was printed out of context in Anerican teen Magazine "Datebook" a few months later, great uproar broke out.
Just a small point to make here, otherwise I pretty much agree (someone else already brought up T.J.):
They were felons and revolutionaries
They were felons BECAUSE they were revolutionaries. Please don't equate them with the common thieves and vandals that had no one's well-being in mind but their own.
You fold it up and seal it in a "secrecy envelope" which does not have any personally identifying marks. Then you seal that in another envelope which has your name, mailing address, and a barcode on it; this envelope must be signed.
Who's to say that the person (or machine) opening your envelope doesn't put some identifying mark on your "secrecy envelope" for you? I've always disliked absentee voting for precisely this reason.
I wish people would include the bill number when writing articles (any website or newspaper, not just/.). It makes it much easier to reference when talking to your Representative or Senator.
And submitted by tech.luver, who is racing with ponca down the the bottom of the pit where roland lives.
All these people want to do is promote their blogs. If/. would not directly link these people's names to any other website than/. these people will go away.
If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS? No, no, NO! Stop taking a plastic knife to a gunfight. Your example does not make any sense with copyright.
To fix yours: It is like everyone on your block is making copies of their houses and land at an extremely low cost (or none) and then giving them out to anyone for free.
YOU are arguing that your house *design* and lot *design* is now being devalued because those with similar (or maybe exact, depending on how cookie-cutter your subdivision is) houses and lots are available elsewhere for free. And when you go to sell your house copies, people will either just make an exact copy of your house or lot and not pay you at all, or just pay you a lot less than what you wished for.
It isn't a perfect example, but, if you don't understand the distinction, I suggest you read up on the topic of copyright some more before you get laughed out of the room.
Personal experience here: Inkjet refill ink is not as good as OEM ink. The colors weren't as bright and it gave off a different, but somewhat worse smell when printing. I don't think it ever clogged my jets, but it wasn't really worth my time to have substandard printouts. Many times I would print pictures from my camera and the difference was noticeable.
Nancy Pelosi could quite simply have frozen Bush out, debating "America's National Color"
1) The House is not the Senate. Only in the Senate can one filibuster.
2) Do I like what Congress is doing all the time? No. But I see that the current Congress has done more compromising than Bush. Maybe too much, but by your measure, they have been getting things done. Perhaps you want a repeat of the Republican controlled House in the '90s that hated Clinton so much that they refused to compromise at all and ground the entire U.S. Government to a halt?
The Democrats have shown that for better or worse, they're willing to compromise. While the Republicans have shown that they absolutely will not. Now, which is the more mature party here?
Dropped the ball? They put bills in front of Bush which he vetoes. In this case, there's nothing that Congress can do but override (and the Republicans have been blocking all but the most recent override attempt). Without an override, or approval from the President, bills go nowhere.
And guess what? That means that the "war" doesn't get funded. Or anything else that Bush vetoes. This is obviously what Bush wants because he hasn't compromised yet.
Yep, that's a big problem. Walking up to a mile? Unthinkable! I'd get all sweaty and stuff. and But riding the bus just isn't as hip as doing Atkins...
I know you're halfway joking, and I do get what your saying and agree, just not completely. The problem is that Americans are expected to not show up to work all sweaty, and are expected to have reliable transportation, which always means owning and using a car. Very few employers have showers and changing rooms, if you are indeed bicycling in to work. And after being very late a few times because of public transportation issues, don't expect to keep your job. Most people have very inflexible hours here in the states.
I am somewhat lucky in that the light rail stop is right in front of where I work. However, there are two problems: 1) From home, the light rail stop is over 2 miles away, and 2) it takes between 60-90 minutes each way on the light rail depending on if I need to transfer, whereas I can be at work by car in 25 minutes.
As far as convenience at work, I'd rather not be here without a car, as there are very few food choices (or anything else) within walking distance. There's also the matter of running errands before, during, or after work.
I have been thinking of using the light rail more often, but using it every day is just not a good option.
You perpetuate this farce by participating and giving it an air of legitimacy. then And, for the record, I do "participate," and I have "participated" far more than you.
For the record, you know nothing about me, and I know little about you. But what I do know is that you have contradictory statements.
There's this gem: ME: "That means my vote was worth 4 votes."
No, it doesn't. The winner is chosen by who has a plurality of the ballots cast. The only way your vote would be "worth 4 votes" is if the election turn-out dropped 75% Which means what? ME: I've voted in elections where only 25% of registered voters showed up. If 75% are not voting, my vote means that much more. Where with 100% turnout it would only weigh as one, a 25% turnout means that I cast a vote for 3 other voters who didn't -- whether they like it or not. Just because you fail to see an informal process, that doesn't make it any less valid of a view. Compare it to stockholders and proxy voting, although that process has been formalized but has the same requirement that *you must vote* or other people get to vote for you.
And once again: With the exception of those offices not subject to districting, the only way to cast your vote for a winning candidate is to change your principles to align with those of the district's majority party. Why don't you nominate a candidate and get him on the ballot? You say you participate. How much is it worth to you? By the sound of it, not very much.
Following that note: "Whine?" It's essentially a mathetmatical certainty If you don't vote for your district's majority party's candidate, whether you voted or stayed home, your "voice" will only be catered to 10% of the time, if you're lucky. You perpetuate this farce ME:Who will be taken more seriously by the elected when it comes to having viewpoints considered?" Neither. They got to where they are by the machinations of the beloved party, and they consistently vote straight party lines in the legislatures.
Then it's no wonder you're marginalized. You claim to participate but your words paint a very defeatist attitude and advocate not participating. You participate but don't want others to? When you boil down your argument, the only person that benefits is you, which is again contradictory to what you write.
If you have meaningful data to back up your assertions and counter my hard data, I'd dearly love to hear it.
Your contradictions and stated defeatism *will* keep you from being taken seriously. How can you change someone's mind if you can't make up your own? You also have silly requests -- not silly in that it is good to follow the scientific method -- but silly in that the counter data you're looking for is hard to track (like the influence of money) because it is unquantifiable. That I have anecdotal evidence about voter participation opening doors into an audience with an elected official seems to not be enough. That the same records you hand wave at also show that elected officials can and do go against their parties seems to be not enough. You'll never get hard scientific data with a definite yes or no answer on this topic, but maybe that suits you just fine.
I don't know *what* you do to participate, as your messages are very confusing. If you're voting, then I'm glad. If you're getting your candidate on the ballot, that's great. If you're actually running for office, then I'm impressed. But if you're not doing anything visible, don't expect others to take any notice.
Okay. Then don't vote. When politicians scan the voting rolls of the last few elections, they'll see my name and won't see yours. And don't register. When the politicians scan the registry, they'll see my name and not yours. Who will be taken more seriously by the elected when it comes to having viewpoints considered? It won't be you.
Perhaps sitting silently with no representation is the form of democracy that you prefer. I prefer to participate.
Slashdot Mirror
Have any of you considered that the Mossad has plants working AT Google
Of course, when you realize that every single Israeli citizen old enough to serve is drafted into the military and is in the active reserves for the remaining time, you should no longer be surprised to have employed a member of the Mossad. You should expect it to happen.
However, the likelihood of the Mossad working on a low-level Internet slander case is one I'll leave up for debate.
What happens when the kite falls into water
From my experience of flying kites above 500 feet (perfectly legal in the U.S. as long as the kite is 5 lbs. or less and not a hazard) the wind doesn't die. I had more problems with the line and structural integrity of the kite. The line may break, the kite may collapse, or the winds may start blowing the wrong way long before you have to worry about a perfectly good kite dipping into the water.
Looks like plasma.kde.org is Slashdotted
They're busy compiling the new version on Gentoo. Check back in 3 days.
It's not as if you couldn't just RETURN the ones that are non-certified and taken your business elsewhere like every other rational consumer.
It looks like that's exactly what California is trying to do. Plus, it also costs the counties and state money on top of the original price to replace these machines. It seems reasonable.
I have. I couldn't email several important people because their ISPs started using various RBLs.
I've been in your shoes with large e-mail service providers. One in particular (let's call it Company Y) treated my e-mail in each of the following ways over the course of a year: spam box (slightly tolerable), blackhole (never got delivered), and just plain rejected at the MTA level. I made an effort to contact them about whitelisting my domain (as I was not on any known blacklist), but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. However, just recently, I mistakenly used a person's address at Company Y, and it actually landed in the non-spam inbox.
Maybe a few things (in aggregate with other people) caused the problem to be solved:
1) I contacted Company Y and tried not to be an ass.
2) I started directing my friends and family to use the competitor (let's call it Company G), as I wasn't having any problems there. My friends and family listened to me (or at least considered it) because I gave a reasoned explanation, and I tried not to be an ass.
3) I mentioned my problem to an employee (friend of a friend) at Company Y (although this employee did not work with e-mail), gave a reasoned explanation, and I tried not to be an ass. Who knows if any water cooler talk got to the right person.. but it couldn't hurt to try.
Over the years, I've had my domains hosted on various ISPs, but in each case, I've made sure that I was allowed to have a server. In the few cases I wasn't, I had the server hosted elsewhere. I'm not saying you're running a mail server where you're not supposed to (I have no idea), but e-mail coming from a dynamic IP address that is allocated to a provider that prohibits servers is just asking to be flat-out rejected. I see too many attempts from dial-up and home cable providers with obviously bogus sender envelope information to know that this general categorization holds true. If you have a provider that allows e-mail servers, and you're still having problems with certain ISPs/e-mail service providers, and you're sure you're not on any blacklist (try http://www.dnsstuff.com/ ), then try contacting the ISP like I mentioned above. If the ISP is not willing to help you, there are other e-mail provider services you could recommend to your friends and relatives.
I could go on and on, but it boils down to trying everything you think is possible before you give up. What are the particulars of your domain?
Every time I see these arguments against spam blacklists, I roll my eyes. On my mailserver, I've carefully selected blacklists that either periodically scan suspected hosts for open proxies or infections, or simply list based on a spam coming from that IP address. And in all cases, these selected blacklists allow quick delisting.
True, the blacklists have blocked some of a large e-mail provider's servers (because spam was indeed sent from those compromised servers), which has inconvenienced me, but at the same time, the IP addresses were delisted quickly, and only relisted again because the e-mail provider *did not clean up the servers*. Only when the servers were cleaned up did those IP addresses stop getting listed.
I use blacklists because I don't want to tie up resources with filtering, nor do I feel I should accept the bandwidth costs on my end. Blacklists aren't the only method I use, but all methods I do use end up dropping the connection, instead of accepting everything and sorting it out later, of which the latter is a very bad practice. Though I am a small guppy in a very large ocean, my server rejects 7 to 12 thousand connections a month, with maybe less than 5 e-mails a year ever being false-positives for spam. And today I get between 3 and 6 spams a day that slip through to my public, well-known e-mail address inboxes which have been around since '99.
Say what you will about blacklists, but they work, and they work well. I don't need to receive, store, and filter all that spam. If I did start up a filter, I'd still keep the blacklists since they would greatly reduce the load, and I have several years of logs and e-mails to back up that assertion.
The "article" submitter is only trying to drum up hits to his blog. When it's this obvious, I don't even bother clicking through.
Perhaps it wouldn't solve everything, but IMHO not directly linking the submitter's name to a non-slashdot URL would greatly limit the article spam on here. And, of course, not letting someone use slashdot to blatantly toot his own horn would limit the practice further.
http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~pirli/beatles/jesus.html
Don't forget to add "television" to your list.
I'll refrain from mentioning Al Gore. d'oh!
Just a small point to make here, otherwise I pretty much agree (someone else already brought up T.J.):
They were felons and revolutionaries
They were felons BECAUSE they were revolutionaries. Please don't equate them with the common thieves and vandals that had no one's well-being in mind but their own.
You fold it up and seal it in a "secrecy envelope" which does not have any personally identifying marks. Then you seal that in another envelope which has your name, mailing address, and a barcode on it; this envelope must be signed.
Who's to say that the person (or machine) opening your envelope doesn't put some identifying mark on your "secrecy envelope" for you? I've always disliked absentee voting for precisely this reason.
I wish people would include the bill number when writing articles (any website or newspaper, not just /.). It makes it much easier to reference when talking to your Representative or Senator.
My source for the number (in case it's somehow wrong): http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=326
So the solution to the problem is to become part of the problem? Did you drink your coffee today?
And submitted by tech.luver, who is racing with ponca down the the bottom of the pit where roland lives.
/. would not directly link these people's names to any other website than /. these people will go away.
All these people want to do is promote their blogs. If
Then read the article. AT&T used optical splitters which means that the NSA got a copy of everything that crossed AT&T.
Oops, I just noticed you were modded flamebait, and rightfully so. FUD applies more to your post than the article.
How about basing it on humanity?
If they wipe us out it will be much more likely by accident, illnesses our immune system can't or stuff like that.
Or like the buffalo? Maybe the aliens would sit in the open cargo bays of their ships in orbit and shoot us with their guns just for amusement...
I hope it's NOT based on humanity.
If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?
No, no, NO! Stop taking a plastic knife to a gunfight. Your example does not make any sense with copyright.
To fix yours: It is like everyone on your block is making copies of their houses and land at an extremely low cost (or none) and then giving them out to anyone for free.
YOU are arguing that your house *design* and lot *design* is now being devalued because those with similar (or maybe exact, depending on how cookie-cutter your subdivision is) houses and lots are available elsewhere for free. And when you go to sell your house copies, people will either just make an exact copy of your house or lot and not pay you at all, or just pay you a lot less than what you wished for.
It isn't a perfect example, but, if you don't understand the distinction, I suggest you read up on the topic of copyright some more before you get laughed out of the room.
Personal experience here: Inkjet refill ink is not as good as OEM ink. The colors weren't as bright and it gave off a different, but somewhat worse smell when printing. I don't think it ever clogged my jets, but it wasn't really worth my time to have substandard printouts. Many times I would print pictures from my camera and the difference was noticeable.
If you run a server that needs to be available 24/7 but still has idle time, f@h will have a minimal footprint and a lot of potential benefit.
Nancy Pelosi could quite simply have frozen Bush out, debating "America's National Color"
1) The House is not the Senate. Only in the Senate can one filibuster.
2) Do I like what Congress is doing all the time? No. But I see that the current Congress has done more compromising than Bush. Maybe too much, but by your measure, they have been getting things done. Perhaps you want a repeat of the Republican controlled House in the '90s that hated Clinton so much that they refused to compromise at all and ground the entire U.S. Government to a halt?
The Democrats have shown that for better or worse, they're willing to compromise. While the Republicans have shown that they absolutely will not. Now, which is the more mature party here?
Dropped the ball? They put bills in front of Bush which he vetoes. In this case, there's nothing that Congress can do but override (and the Republicans have been blocking all but the most recent override attempt). Without an override, or approval from the President, bills go nowhere.
And guess what? That means that the "war" doesn't get funded. Or anything else that Bush vetoes. This is obviously what Bush wants because he hasn't compromised yet.
Yep, that's a big problem. Walking up to a mile? Unthinkable! I'd get all sweaty and stuff.
and
But riding the bus just isn't as hip as doing Atkins...
I know you're halfway joking, and I do get what your saying and agree, just not completely. The problem is that Americans are expected to not show up to work all sweaty, and are expected to have reliable transportation, which always means owning and using a car. Very few employers have showers and changing rooms, if you are indeed bicycling in to work. And after being very late a few times because of public transportation issues, don't expect to keep your job. Most people have very inflexible hours here in the states.
I am somewhat lucky in that the light rail stop is right in front of where I work. However, there are two problems: 1) From home, the light rail stop is over 2 miles away, and 2) it takes between 60-90 minutes each way on the light rail depending on if I need to transfer, whereas I can be at work by car in 25 minutes.
As far as convenience at work, I'd rather not be here without a car, as there are very few food choices (or anything else) within walking distance. There's also the matter of running errands before, during, or after work.
I have been thinking of using the light rail more often, but using it every day is just not a good option.
And here's the link to DARPA's website.
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/
rob_squared had it right. Heat death, as far as the universe is concerned, means no heat at all, AKA no free energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
You perpetuate this farce by participating and giving it an air of legitimacy.
then
And, for the record, I do "participate," and I have "participated" far more than you.
For the record, you know nothing about me, and I know little about you. But what I do know is that you have contradictory statements.
There's this gem:
ME: "That means my vote was worth 4 votes."
No, it doesn't. The winner is chosen by who has a plurality of the ballots cast. The only way your vote would be "worth 4 votes" is if the election turn-out dropped 75%
Which means what?
ME: I've voted in elections where only 25% of registered voters showed up.
If 75% are not voting, my vote means that much more. Where with 100% turnout it would only weigh as one, a 25% turnout means that I cast a vote for 3 other voters who didn't -- whether they like it or not. Just because you fail to see an informal process, that doesn't make it any less valid of a view. Compare it to stockholders and proxy voting, although that process has been formalized but has the same requirement that *you must vote* or other people get to vote for you.
And once again:
With the exception of those offices not subject to districting, the only way to cast your vote for a winning candidate is to change your principles to align with those of the district's majority party.
Why don't you nominate a candidate and get him on the ballot? You say you participate. How much is it worth to you? By the sound of it, not very much.
Following that note:
"Whine?" It's essentially a mathetmatical certainty
If you don't vote for your district's majority party's candidate, whether you voted or stayed home, your "voice" will only be catered to 10% of the time, if you're lucky.
You perpetuate this farce
ME:Who will be taken more seriously by the elected when it comes to having viewpoints considered?"
Neither. They got to where they are by the machinations of the beloved party, and they consistently vote straight party lines in the legislatures.
Then it's no wonder you're marginalized. You claim to participate but your words paint a very defeatist attitude and advocate not participating. You participate but don't want others to? When you boil down your argument, the only person that benefits is you, which is again contradictory to what you write.
If you have meaningful data to back up your assertions and counter my hard data, I'd dearly love to hear it.
Your contradictions and stated defeatism *will* keep you from being taken seriously. How can you change someone's mind if you can't make up your own? You also have silly requests -- not silly in that it is good to follow the scientific method -- but silly in that the counter data you're looking for is hard to track (like the influence of money) because it is unquantifiable. That I have anecdotal evidence about voter participation opening doors into an audience with an elected official seems to not be enough. That the same records you hand wave at also show that elected officials can and do go against their parties seems to be not enough. You'll never get hard scientific data with a definite yes or no answer on this topic, but maybe that suits you just fine.
I don't know *what* you do to participate, as your messages are very confusing. If you're voting, then I'm glad. If you're getting your candidate on the ballot, that's great. If you're actually running for office, then I'm impressed. But if you're not doing anything visible, don't expect others to take any notice.
Okay. Then don't vote. When politicians scan the voting rolls of the last few elections, they'll see my name and won't see yours. And don't register. When the politicians scan the registry, they'll see my name and not yours. Who will be taken more seriously by the elected when it comes to having viewpoints considered? It won't be you.
Perhaps sitting silently with no representation is the form of democracy that you prefer. I prefer to participate.