According to Wikipedia we have this right based on the judgement in the case, "Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)". It gave us the right to make an electronic backup copy for personal use.
And what better way to make a backup than to spread it across a bunch of hard drives in multiple locations using bittorent?;-)
Once again, as I've said in previous posts, I never claimed that the ciminal is not to fault, or that the victim is to fault.
To go along with your analogy, I'm simply stating that the woman who was assulted could have easily avoided the neighborhood. Walking through the bad part of town in the manor your described is just asking for it. Is it wrong to expect people to take responsibility for their well-being? Doesn't the woman have a responsibilty to not put herself in that position?
I never said that Fortuny wasn't wrong...all I said was that those who've been exposed need to take accountability for their actions as well.
If I were to give out my bank acct number, passwords, etc to an untrustworth source (ie, random person, etc) then I should expect to be exploited. Sure, the person who did it is an asshole, but I should have known better and protected myself better. This isn't rocket science. People are taught in elementary school to not talk to strangers. Why in hell would I give a stranger a nude pic of myself? They might be an asshole...
BStempi
their dumbfucks for using a public medium to do it.
E-mail is not a public medium. They didn't post their information to the net.
Email in itself is not a public medium...agreed. Email to an unknown recipient might as well be. They have no clue who that person is, what their (ha! this time I used the correct spelling) intentions are, or if the person is who they claim to be.
Take for example someone picking up a hooker in a city (not that this is what is happening on line, but bear with me for a minute). Ther person sees you, yes....but they do not have a picture of you, your full name, your address, or any other way of contacting you. Sure, they could use the licesnse plate on your car (should you be using a car). The difference is that these people on the internet are handing over tons of uneeded information. You wouldn't do this real life.
If I were to hand a unknown stranger my bank account number and routing number, I should expect it to be misused. That would be my own fault. Why are these people not expected to take the same responsibility online?
Exposing people who did nothing wrong and thereby at least embarassing them if not destroying their lifes is neither witty, nor funny, it's just disgusting.
Even though the guy was an asshole, let's not neglect the stupidity of the people who replied to the post. They embarrased themselves. If they didn't want their wives to know that they were cheating on them, then perhaps they should have used some medium other than craigslist. I think that saying that the people who responded did "nothing wrong" is a bit of an over statment. (A) Their scum-bags for cheating on their current lovers, and (b) their dumbfucks for using a public medium to do it.
Windows Server Update Services.
Instead of building a CD, I took into account that new updates will come out all of the time. Working in an environment of 150+ pcs, this also turns out to be a bandwidth hog. So, i turned to WSUS.
Think of WSUS as a local MSUpdate repo. I tell the server what upates I want, it downloads them, and then distributes them. The only other thing i had to do was to adjust every computers group policy to look for updates from my server at midnight every night. Doing this under active directory is REALLY easy.
I couldn't disagree more. It is not Apple's MP3 player, but Apple's product. It's the USERS'S MP3 player, and the user reserves the RIGHT to go elsewhere to purchase music. All Real is doing is providing the user with an alternative. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. Apple can grow up.
Responding primarily to the last part of the post that had anything useful in it (you know, the part between "And about your 'if the address...'" and "leave the thinking to the professionals kid", it may not be a bad idea. I never said that you should, by hand, try to respond to each email that you get. In fact, I implicitly said that it should be done programatically (sp?). Here's a fair example: Every time your POP server recieves an email, it pokes around in the header and attempts to see if the address is real (ie, is the web site fake? is the mail box on that url fake?). If it is, then the POP server can get rid of the message before it ever gets to the user. The user doesn't have to send out annoying "are you real" emails, and the legit senders don't recieve anything extra.
I'm going to take a page from your book and tell you to "leave the thinking to the professionals." There are some people who are already using this technique. In this article, the guy who is complaining about spam does use the technique I was talking about.
So, in conclusion, I guess I did leave it to the professionals, 'kid':)
Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. I don't think I am, but I'll throw it out there anyway just for the sake of discussion.
How would a spam email or a spam drone fake an email claiming to be someone on your contact list? The only way I can conjure up is that if you're getting spam from people on your contact list, then you too are effected and your box is probably comprimised. If this is a bad assumption, then please do explain.
But, operating under what seems to be a good assumption, if your box is in working order, then the span you get will not reflect the address of one of the people on your mailing list. While it may be true that a lot of the boxes that you would potentially reply to will not exist, some of them will. I never claimed that this had a 100% spam reducing effect. But, for those spam morons who send spam through a legit email address, this will stop them. As for those who use drones and comprimised sustems, there is nothing we can do about that. Those drone will come and go, and so will the person who wrote them as they will get their ass kicked in a legal sense for writing malicious software.
Oh, and to make it perfectly clear that wiping mailing lists of spammers that have legit email addresses and legit headers, I refuse to believe that 99.9% of spam comes from drones. Though it may be high, it's not 99.9%. A quick Google search can reveil that.
And another thing that just came to mind as I'm typing this....if the email comes from a not-so-legit or non-existant address, why would you want to read it? Or even see it? It's not THAT difficult. If you try to send a message back to the spammer and it fails, then it is obviously spam and should be deleted before the user ever gets a chance to read it.
Lets also get one thing straight: just because I see the lack of maturity in DoS-ing spammers doesn not mean that I have the IQ of a 12 year old. The person who wants to throw insults at all of those who try to create legit ways to tarpit spam are those with the low IQs.
I was installing Macafee Security Center for a customer of mine. Trying to ward off boredom during the process, I began to read reviews on the product. It apparently takes mail suspected of spam, and sends it a message similar to the one you get back from a mail server when the email box is full or doesn't exist. The logic is that if the spam program gets a "does not exist" message, it will remove you from it's list. Instead of displaying a 12 year old mind set, how about emptying their mailing lists by creating a program to selectivley "remove" yourself from certain lists by pretending to not exist?
Slashdot Mirror
So, is that Google's way of diagnosing hemroids, or of helping you find gay blind dates?
Is it because.... *duh duh duhhhhhhh* they are the same?
And what better way to make a backup than to spread it across a bunch of hard drives in multiple locations using bittorent? ;-)
To go along with your analogy, I'm simply stating that the woman who was assulted could have easily avoided the neighborhood. Walking through the bad part of town in the manor your described is just asking for it. Is it wrong to expect people to take responsibility for their well-being? Doesn't the woman have a responsibilty to not put herself in that position?
If I were to give out my bank acct number, passwords, etc to an untrustworth source (ie, random person, etc) then I should expect to be exploited. Sure, the person who did it is an asshole, but I should have known better and protected myself better. This isn't rocket science. People are taught in elementary school to not talk to strangers. Why in hell would I give a stranger a nude pic of myself? They might be an asshole... BStempi
Email in itself is not a public medium...agreed. Email to an unknown recipient might as well be. They have no clue who that person is, what their (ha! this time I used the correct spelling) intentions are, or if the person is who they claim to be.
Take for example someone picking up a hooker in a city (not that this is what is happening on line, but bear with me for a minute). Ther person sees you, yes....but they do not have a picture of you, your full name, your address, or any other way of contacting you. Sure, they could use the licesnse plate on your car (should you be using a car). The difference is that these people on the internet are handing over tons of uneeded information. You wouldn't do this real life.
If I were to hand a unknown stranger my bank account number and routing number, I should expect it to be misused. That would be my own fault. Why are these people not expected to take the same responsibility online?
Even though the guy was an asshole, let's not neglect the stupidity of the people who replied to the post. They embarrased themselves. If they didn't want their wives to know that they were cheating on them, then perhaps they should have used some medium other than craigslist. I think that saying that the people who responded did "nothing wrong" is a bit of an over statment. (A) Their scum-bags for cheating on their current lovers, and (b) their dumbfucks for using a public medium to do it.
BStempi
file-trading is flat.
I actually think of it more as a rectangular prism....
Which is flat you insensitive clod!
Instead of building a CD, I took into account that new updates will come out all of the time. Working in an environment of 150+ pcs, this also turns out to be a bandwidth hog. So, i turned to WSUS.
Think of WSUS as a local MSUpdate repo. I tell the server what upates I want, it downloads them, and then distributes them. The only other thing i had to do was to adjust every computers group policy to look for updates from my server at midnight every night. Doing this under active directory is REALLY easy.
Maybe you'd see less testing on a Microsoft operating system if there were nearly as many graphics intensive games/applications for linux.
I couldn't disagree more. It is not Apple's MP3 player, but Apple's product. It's the USERS'S MP3 player, and the user reserves the RIGHT to go elsewhere to purchase music. All Real is doing is providing the user with an alternative. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. Apple can grow up.
Responding primarily to the last part of the post that had anything useful in it (you know, the part between "And about your 'if the address...'" and "leave the thinking to the professionals kid", it may not be a bad idea. I never said that you should, by hand, try to respond to each email that you get. In fact, I implicitly said that it should be done programatically (sp?). Here's a fair example: Every time your POP server recieves an email, it pokes around in the header and attempts to see if the address is real (ie, is the web site fake? is the mail box on that url fake?). If it is, then the POP server can get rid of the message before it ever gets to the user. The user doesn't have to send out annoying "are you real" emails, and the legit senders don't recieve anything extra. I'm going to take a page from your book and tell you to "leave the thinking to the professionals." There are some people who are already using this technique. In this article, the guy who is complaining about spam does use the technique I was talking about. So, in conclusion, I guess I did leave it to the professionals, 'kid' :)
Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. I don't think I am, but I'll throw it out there anyway just for the sake of discussion. How would a spam email or a spam drone fake an email claiming to be someone on your contact list? The only way I can conjure up is that if you're getting spam from people on your contact list, then you too are effected and your box is probably comprimised. If this is a bad assumption, then please do explain. But, operating under what seems to be a good assumption, if your box is in working order, then the span you get will not reflect the address of one of the people on your mailing list. While it may be true that a lot of the boxes that you would potentially reply to will not exist, some of them will. I never claimed that this had a 100% spam reducing effect. But, for those spam morons who send spam through a legit email address, this will stop them. As for those who use drones and comprimised sustems, there is nothing we can do about that. Those drone will come and go, and so will the person who wrote them as they will get their ass kicked in a legal sense for writing malicious software. Oh, and to make it perfectly clear that wiping mailing lists of spammers that have legit email addresses and legit headers, I refuse to believe that 99.9% of spam comes from drones. Though it may be high, it's not 99.9%. A quick Google search can reveil that. And another thing that just came to mind as I'm typing this....if the email comes from a not-so-legit or non-existant address, why would you want to read it? Or even see it? It's not THAT difficult. If you try to send a message back to the spammer and it fails, then it is obviously spam and should be deleted before the user ever gets a chance to read it. Lets also get one thing straight: just because I see the lack of maturity in DoS-ing spammers doesn not mean that I have the IQ of a 12 year old. The person who wants to throw insults at all of those who try to create legit ways to tarpit spam are those with the low IQs.
I was installing Macafee Security Center for a customer of mine. Trying to ward off boredom during the process, I began to read reviews on the product. It apparently takes mail suspected of spam, and sends it a message similar to the one you get back from a mail server when the email box is full or doesn't exist. The logic is that if the spam program gets a "does not exist" message, it will remove you from it's list. Instead of displaying a 12 year old mind set, how about emptying their mailing lists by creating a program to selectivley "remove" yourself from certain lists by pretending to not exist?