IS this API going to have A system and method for enabling information providers using a computer network such as the Internet to influence a position for a search listing within a search result list generated by an Internet search engine, because that is what google is being sued for at the momment. Interesting they choose now to release the API. Almost as if they can show that the function is an intrigal part of a different system (by way of this new API), that they have a chance in the courts. I'll let you be the judge!
I can remember krow (aka Brian Aker) tell me in IRC about how he setup apache2 to just server images. Like the most simple thing you can do. It requires no special threading, or proces modes, just http1.1. At most, they can do geographic ad targeting with revers DNS lookups tied to the image servers. Blah... still not that special, but at least they can say they run apache2. I have also read where he claims apache2 is't ready for prime time. This is very telling, not because he is senior Slashdot developer, but more because he is known best for his apache 1.3 modules, such as mod_mp3, or mod_layout.
What about them... do the methods have to be different, or the same? At what level of difference is there? Obviously a "system" and "method" could mean totally different things. Besides, a method of promoting, or demoting a search result seem to be like an integrial part of any good query system. I mean its all part of data-mining, right? And, what exactly is the definition of computer network? machines connected via the "internet" of computer networked in some other way?
1.2 "Company Implementation" shall mean only those portions of the software developed by Company that implement CIFS for use on Non-Microsoft Platforms.
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions. For reasons, including without limitation, because (i) Company does not have the right to sublicense its rights to the Necessary Claims and (ii) Company's license rights hereunder to Microsoft's intellectual property are limited in scope, Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License.
I see nothing that says I cannot stand up and do a dramatic reading of my source code. Section A of the "imparing license" claims that you cannot distribute in source form, so does that mean in binary form only? What about interpreded form, just as java byte code... that is neither source-code, or compiled code... but neither? Also, the GNU, and derivitaves, are mentioned by name... very strange! Section B claims that you cannot realease your implementaion for the purpose of derivitave works, but since you cannot release the implementaion in source form, basically mean nothing, right? The 3rd part (section c) about releaseing your implementaion at no cost to others.
So the way I read it is that I can create my implementaion, release it under the BSD license, and charge a penny for it. I would have to use JAVA since the byte code is not technically source code. Or perhaps a mathmatical modeling language... is this thingking wrong?
Lastly, since the form requires a signatory, does that mean if I do't sign, that I can do whatever I wish?
I still don't understand why the MPAA et'all need this law? I mean isn't the DMCA enough. Can the media companyts still create secure hardware without the law? If the media companies created a new hardware platform with built-in watermarking, digital signatures, and encryption... would it not be proptected with the existing DMCA if anybody attempted to research, or study the device? I'm very unlcear why this law is needed when the media companies are free to create any hardware of their dreams. Why would they need to destroy the areana of general purpose computing? To force somebody to add security to any device that can store bits is a very fundamental thing! Thanks in advance for any answers. =)
The article says something about the intel execs claiming that their hands are tied, the laws are writen in such a way that forces them to be very asshole'ish about trademark issues. So then why hasn't Apple compuer shutdown the Apple orchard bussiness? j/k =)
At some point you would think that people would patent all the ideas, and all the words, and all things would be owned by somebody. To the point that laws would have to under go a dramatic reversal to allow a person to even speak in public without uttering copy protected speak.
And speaking of dilution. I think Dilution would be more like saying "Sparc within", or "Alpha in-the-box", and even "PowerPC inward". Dilution in this form is true dilution since it would make the issue ambigous of how you define "inside", or its like words.
Let me reply to this, and all others who have posted replies. Firstly, the consumer gets what they pay for. Namely, they are paying for an ip address and the service of packet forwarding from the ISP. In addition, an ISP typically also offers other services such as email, ftp, and httpd access. Here is where I'd like to make a few points in the converse. For example, since the consumer is paying for an ip address, and packet forwarding, then why is it that many ISP's tend to NOT ALLOW the usage of arbitrary protocols? I'm speaking of IPSEC, or anything that can be perceived as the buzz word VPN.
So now I digress, the matter of a service oriented society. I disagree about the 2nd point categorically. When I worked for Microsoft supporting Windows95, 98... I knew that that Microsoft was selling my service. So it is true that we are a service level society. However, I can also say that support persons need to have cleanly defined support boundaries. There is a line that must not be crossed in regards to what is supported, and what isn't. Does an ISP support eBay, they most certainly do not! Does an ISP take ownership of connectivity issues, they always do. If a support tech were to cross the support boundaries, they are only asking for trouble and in effect on their own.
Tech support people need not teach the consumer how to use the product they have purchased. The consumer can fall on their own sword, and light their own path. I'm speaking of how to operate VNC remote control software, or the irssi IRC client. This is not the same as supporting the applications provided by the ISP such as how to configure a standard Netscape email client. The IP settings are a given, and the core business of an ISP.
Back when I, and two other persons, where responsible for supporting the school dial-up service.... One of the nice things we did for the idiot students was to provide a convenient little CD rom that we had the school press at the cd plant. We would put all kinds of nice things in the kit: setup scripts, the latest Netscape, wsftp, and some docs (that nobody would read). All that good stuff packed into a handy CD that was available all over campus. The point I'm trying to make is that we would take advantage of the discs freeware, we didn't support them. We would only support the user (students, teachers) in establishing the serrial connection, ppp initilization, and access to the local campus network. Support of the campus network included making sure they could access accedmic resources. When you got 20 calls on hold, and two people answering phones... it just doens't seem that important to teach the user how to operate a chat client.
Another point I would like to make is about support persons. The world simply doesn't understand support people. Having been one, and escaping the industry I can say with authority that constant exposure to floundering users eventually leads to what is known as "bastardism". Any seasons Admin will attest to what I'm talking about. They know what support boundaries are, and what customer services is all about. Why would a pay to talk to a BOFH, and a meager minor league ISP tech at that. I'd rather be spared the cost of paying for that persons job, and get cheaper Ip address's. Enough said.
I hate the way the public thinks the ISP is supposed to support the client. I mean, what the client does with the internet is their own fault. Why should an ISP have to waste money on support people, who are onyl the more cynical, BOFH types on planet Earth. As far as the ISP's should be conserned is with the peer-to-peer connection of the ISP to the user premisise. The last thing an ISP should mess with is the affairs what happens inside the clients premisis.
A notable exception is AOL, who think that the ISP and the client should co-mingle... This is more akin to cable brodcasting service that provides access to the cable tv network, and the programming.
A black hole would swallow clouds of stars like a whale gulping down plankton. Black holes would literally be points of no return; fall into one, and you'd be trapped forever. If Earth bumped into a black hole, it would be goodbye Earth.
This part right here tells me the author doesn't know much about Black Holes! First of all, they are not that big. In fact the largest, and abnormally, sized Black Hole that we can observe is about 14 magnitudes greater than our own Sun. Add to that the actual size even then is perhaps the size of the moon, or less!
So when a black hole travels though space-time, it gets near another object, the process that starts takes years to finish. IT does not gobble up handful's of stars at one sitting.
We can detect Black Holes by observing the siphoning of the starts gas from a long distance. It looks like the star grows a very thin and long tendril that extends away from the star main sphere. The tendril of star stuff isn't directly consumed by the black hole. The Tendril actually forms a swirl of gas around the black hole. As the black hole closer to the star, the tendril changes form to a more amorphous shape. At that point the black hole would be totally shielded behind a torrent of star-stuff that would totally block it out any direct observation. The Star, and the black hole would begin to revolve around one-another in a dance that would end with the black hole assuming the mass of the star.
If you can imagine what I just wrote, that is what astronomers have observed.
Not only that, the author also appears to have a gross inability to describe the Bose-Einstein Condensate. The reality is that a condensate cloud could probably never exist in nature, and to call it the actual space-time stuff is absurd. The condensate cloud is more like the 5th state of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and Condensate cloud). Think of a Condensate cloud as the extreme opposite of plasma. Where one is really hot, the other only exist at supper cold temperatures. In fact, the Bose-Einstein cloud is the coldest thing we have ever created I think. At such a cold state of matter, time almost seems to stop. A really bizarre occurrence is when photons are shot into the cloud, and they appear to slow down while in the cloud, then speed up as they exit.
This same topic was publicly introduced in the Scientific American magazine a few months ago. The article was interesting, but at the end had this part about how the universe could actually be surrounded by a giant condensate cloud. The idea sounded really good until that part.
What this seems like to me is we humans have recently discovered this cosmic snaik-oil, the cold condensate cloud, and are now looking for a place to make it fit in the universe, no matter how sensational.
So how should they program in the recognition of "a pot of gold and rumplestiltskins" in the cats mouth?? Thats a good idea though, to maybe use this to teach the cats what you, the master, wants the cat to bring you.
Yeah after all, anyone who uses encryption must have something to hide, and if you have something to hide from the goverment, then you must be a criminal.
While we are talking about patents, I think I'll get a patent on factoring, but only factoring of numbers on thursdays. This way I can get my lawyers to go after anybody useing SSH on a Thursday.
Then I'm going to get a pantent on a method of looking at people ugly with my eyeballs, and sue people who give me dirty looks for my awsome patents.
The fish is a bit weird on the translations. Anyone got a link for a better translation engine?
Isn't Brazil another goverment that has been known to enbrace open source? However embracing open source, and pushing open source warez to your population is another. This sets a new presedence in that regard.
I think here in the USA, the goverment would rather do the oposite. Like the key escro stuff a few years ago, and now the DMCA.
I duno.... I guess I've been on/. for too long, and I'm jaded.... I know I can psuedo block them for free, but my point is that over the years... this is the one thing I would rather pay for, not the adds, but the idiot block. There is no/. filter that can figure out if a person is a troll, short of adding an AI to the slashcode backend to read post for me, but what is the point then of the moderation system...
I'd pay Andover to remove ALL ads, and also remove the anonymous cowards from my world. In other words, I'd pay to not have to read post by trolls, etc. I'm not certain if this was covered in the IRC, but I would have raised the issue if I wasn't at work, and able to participate.
just my two cents.... sorry if it is redundant... and I'm sure an anon coward will have to say something, just the people to prove my point about quality non-troll subscriptions.
A reward system needs to be enacted to entice the ISP's to provide unencumbered access to the 6-bone. ISP's that handle dial-up users can tunnel the ip4 traffic on behalf of their customers.
Talking about people who make comments without reading the articles. Like they only read the headlines, and then write a huge post about it. Sometimes the headlines imply something that is not accurate, and its funny to see people go off on the inacurate info.
yup, so how do we fight against hardware key loggers? If I found one in my PC, what could I do about it? Post pictures on Slashdot, hope the goverment doesn't get mad that I stole their hardware? I duno.
Well from the post you made,you obviously know a thing or two about history. But how can we take you serriously when you post as anonymous? Even using a nick suck as Jdizzy" is better than being AC, because I have integrity, even when I spew total crap... I still stand by my crap. Karma is not the basis of integrity, and if you want to protect that precious karma of yours, or as you claim, "simply don't need it", then you are still of the group of people who have no honour. Don't think for a minute that I think your a fool, obviously not. But I cannot take you serriouly either, as nobody takes AC's serriously.
PS. I wouldn't bother to look up your credentials if you posted true nickname, I don't have the time to give a damn, but as mark twain eliqently wrote once... you enter the room late and the world see that you are a fool, but when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt. The same situation exist for AC's who claim they are experts, they remove any credance of credibility. Even if you can prove that the founders DID NOT take influence from the greek socienty, who cares? You only reason to make a comment inthe first place was to ask if the USA took influence fromthe French, or the English. Besides being off topic, we are talking about Australian common law, I don't think you really had a point to start with. Your only intention was to discect my opinions. To write as an AC is ideal for you to hide. Go think about that the next time you plan to write a paragraph as an expert. Then again, when you were trolling my comments, you probably didn't think i would continue the silly question you ask.
I would say you have an insight into the subject, and that the subject is not too esoteric for me, your overtone of speech is.
I'd say a registered user who spews facts is better than to hide being an AC, and mind you the only reason he/she does is because he cannot stand on solid ground. He/She is not anonymous, just a coward. There is a big difference. Also, when you claim to be an expert at something, you stake your reputation on that claim, then why post as an AC unless you obviouly don't have the integrity to stand behind the supposed "expert" opinions they spew.
Besides, that person cannot prove that the Founders did NOT take influnce from the Greeks in the formation of the United States of America. All he has proven, and very acutly, is that the ancient greek socienty was not the only influnce in the formation of the USA goverment, and that is also very obvious too.
The fact is that this Common law or the King James era probably conflicts with modern laws in Australia, and will be thrown out in a summary manner.
I never claimed that the founders DID NOT take a que fromtheir environment, and maintain a qazi English system of rule. However, the fact remains that Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin both were into Greek Mythology, as most folks back in that day were of the classical education. Indeed, the basis of American politics is very much a rip-off of ancient Greek society. At that same note, one does not simply invent a new form of goverment over night. Thank you for you comment, but you obviously don't know what your talking about. Thanks anyways.
yuppers, in the begining only rich land owners could have any sort of influence of politics. As far as a myth goes, I'd counter that it is a myth that you perpetuate in yourself that we Americans are all the same, and hold the same values. Obviosly you have just made a comment based on an opinion, not a fact.
First of all, your credibility as an "expert" is under serious question since you refuse to identify yourself, until then your words are the vapor of an anonymous coward, and will be treated as such.
In responce: What does American system of government have to do with the British, or the French? If anything, you have illustrated my point. America is based on the ancient Greek system of rule, albeit a modified version. Actually you have taken my original point to a whole new low; I was talking about how the old laws of British rule were the basis for the American Revolution. The same class of laws might end up hurting the people in Australia. By people, I mean to say the assholes that use spam as a form of "free speech", and "free expression". Nobody likes spam, but everybody should be free. The issue is not the spam, it is the technologies that allows the spam to exist in the first place.
I really hope you don't actually believe all this.
What I "don't actually belive" is that this ancient law in australia will apply in a modern case. However, I do find some humor in what some people define as a "chattels" as defined in the quote from the old law:
The ancient law forbids a person from interfering with the goods and chattels of another person without their consent.
As if to say that a persons mear presence, or the act of speaking to another person can be construed as interferance. Since when do I need your permision to speak with you? Wouldn't the mear act of asking be held as interference?
In the USA, we have laws that prevent the abuse of power, such as this old law might. The idea of "freedom of speech". If a law like that were found on the book in America, it would probably be deleted, instead of used against the people. If the Australian goverment chooses to use this as a precendent, god help the people of Australia.
We all hate spammers, and the law is not the answer. The technologies being used needs to be improved, not the law. The creators of the SMTP system did not take security, or privacy into account when these systesm were first implemented back in the early days of the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
IS this API going to have A system and method for enabling information providers using a computer network such as the Internet to influence a position for a search listing within a search result list generated by an Internet search engine, because that is what google is being sued for at the momment. Interesting they choose now to release the API. Almost as if they can show that the function is an intrigal part of a different system (by way of this new API), that they have a chance in the courts. I'll let you be the judge!
I can remember krow (aka Brian Aker) tell me in IRC about how he setup apache2 to just server images. Like the most simple thing you can do. It requires no special threading, or proces modes, just http1.1. At most, they can do geographic ad targeting with revers DNS lookups tied to the image servers. Blah... still not that special, but at least they can say they run apache2. I have also read where he claims apache2 is't ready for prime time. This is very telling, not because he is senior Slashdot developer, but more because he is known best for his apache 1.3 modules, such as mod_mp3, or mod_layout.
What about them... do the methods have to be different, or the same? At what level of difference is there? Obviously a "system" and "method" could mean totally different things. Besides, a method of promoting, or demoting a search result seem to be like an integrial part of any good query system. I mean its all part of data-mining, right? And, what exactly is the definition of computer network? machines connected via the "internet" of computer networked in some other way?
1.2 "Company Implementation" shall mean only those portions of the software developed by Company that implement CIFS for use on Non-Microsoft Platforms.
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions. For reasons, including without limitation, because (i) Company does not have the right to sublicense its rights to the Necessary Claims and (ii) Company's license rights hereunder to Microsoft's intellectual property are limited in scope, Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License.
I see nothing that says I cannot stand up and do a dramatic reading of my source code. Section A of the "imparing license" claims that you cannot distribute in source form, so does that mean in binary form only? What about interpreded form, just as java byte code... that is neither source-code, or compiled code... but neither? Also, the GNU, and derivitaves, are mentioned by name... very strange! Section B claims that you cannot realease your implementaion for the purpose of derivitave works, but since you cannot release the implementaion in source form, basically mean nothing, right? The 3rd part (section c) about releaseing your implementaion at no cost to others.
So the way I read it is that I can create my implementaion, release it under the BSD license, and charge a penny for it. I would have to use JAVA since the byte code is not technically source code. Or perhaps a mathmatical modeling language... is this thingking wrong?
Lastly, since the form requires a signatory, does that mean if I do't sign, that I can do whatever I wish?
I still don't understand why the MPAA et'all need this law? I mean isn't the DMCA enough. Can the media companyts still create secure hardware without the law? If the media companies created a new hardware platform with built-in watermarking, digital signatures, and encryption... would it not be proptected with the existing DMCA if anybody attempted to research, or study the device? I'm very unlcear why this law is needed when the media companies are free to create any hardware of their dreams. Why would they need to destroy the areana of general purpose computing? To force somebody to add security to any device that can store bits is a very fundamental thing! Thanks in advance for any answers. =)
The article says something about the intel execs claiming that their hands are tied, the laws are writen in such a way that forces them to be very asshole'ish about trademark issues. So then why hasn't Apple compuer shutdown the Apple orchard bussiness? j/k =)
At some point you would think that people would patent all the ideas, and all the words, and all things would be owned by somebody. To the point that laws would have to under go a dramatic reversal to allow a person to even speak in public without uttering copy protected speak.
And speaking of dilution. I think Dilution would be more like saying "Sparc within", or "Alpha in-the-box", and even "PowerPC inward". Dilution in this form is true dilution since it would make the issue ambigous of how you define "inside", or its like words.
Let me reply to this, and all others who have posted replies. Firstly, the consumer gets what they pay for. Namely, they are paying for an ip address and the service of packet forwarding from the ISP. In addition, an ISP typically also offers other services such as email, ftp, and httpd access. Here is where I'd like to make a few points in the converse. For example, since the consumer is paying for an ip address, and packet forwarding, then why is it that many ISP's tend to NOT ALLOW the usage of arbitrary protocols? I'm speaking of IPSEC, or anything that can be perceived as the buzz word VPN.
So now I digress, the matter of a service oriented society. I disagree about the 2nd point categorically. When I worked for Microsoft supporting Windows95, 98... I knew that that Microsoft was selling my service. So it is true that we are a service level society. However, I can also say that support persons need to have cleanly defined support boundaries. There is a line that must not be crossed in regards to what is supported, and what isn't. Does an ISP support eBay, they most certainly do not! Does an ISP take ownership of connectivity issues, they always do. If a support tech were to cross the support boundaries, they are only asking for trouble and in effect on their own.
Tech support people need not teach the consumer how to use the product they have purchased. The consumer can fall on their own sword, and light their own path. I'm speaking of how to operate VNC remote control software, or the irssi IRC client. This is not the same as supporting the applications provided by the ISP such as how to configure a standard Netscape email client. The IP settings are a given, and the core business of an ISP.
Back when I, and two other persons, where responsible for supporting the school dial-up service.... One of the nice things we did for the idiot students was to provide a convenient little CD rom that we had the school press at the cd plant. We would put all kinds of nice things in the kit: setup scripts, the latest Netscape, wsftp, and some docs (that nobody would read). All that good stuff packed into a handy CD that was available all over campus. The point I'm trying to make is that we would take advantage of the discs freeware, we didn't support them. We would only support the user (students, teachers) in establishing the serrial connection, ppp initilization, and access to the local campus network. Support of the campus network included making sure they could access accedmic resources. When you got 20 calls on hold, and two people answering phones... it just doens't seem that important to teach the user how to operate a chat client.
Another point I would like to make is about support persons. The world simply doesn't understand support people. Having been one, and escaping the industry I can say with authority that constant exposure to floundering users eventually leads to what is known as "bastardism". Any seasons Admin will attest to what I'm talking about. They know what support boundaries are, and what customer services is all about. Why would a pay to talk to a BOFH, and a meager minor league ISP tech at that. I'd rather be spared the cost of paying for that persons job, and get cheaper Ip address's. Enough said.
I hate the way the public thinks the ISP is supposed to support the client. I mean, what the client does with the internet is their own fault. Why should an ISP have to waste money on support people, who are onyl the more cynical, BOFH types on planet Earth. As far as the ISP's should be conserned is with the peer-to-peer connection of the ISP to the user premisise. The last thing an ISP should mess with is the affairs what happens inside the clients premisis.
A notable exception is AOL, who think that the ISP and the client should co-mingle... This is more akin to cable brodcasting service that provides access to the cable tv network, and the programming.
A black hole would swallow clouds of stars like a whale gulping down plankton. Black holes would literally be points of no return; fall into one, and you'd be trapped forever. If Earth bumped into a black hole, it would be goodbye Earth.
This part right here tells me the author doesn't know much about Black Holes! First of all, they are not that big. In fact the largest, and abnormally, sized Black Hole that we can observe is about 14 magnitudes greater than our own Sun. Add to that the actual size even then is perhaps the size of the moon, or less!
So when a black hole travels though space-time, it gets near another object, the process that starts takes years to finish. IT does not gobble up handful's of stars at one sitting.
We can detect Black Holes by observing the siphoning of the starts gas from a long distance. It looks like the star grows a very thin and long tendril that extends away from the star main sphere. The tendril of star stuff isn't directly consumed by the black hole. The Tendril actually forms a swirl of gas around the black hole. As the black hole closer to the star, the tendril changes form to a more amorphous shape. At that point the black hole would be totally shielded behind a torrent of star-stuff that would totally block it out any direct observation. The Star, and the black hole would begin to revolve around one-another in a dance that would end with the black hole assuming the mass of the star.
If you can imagine what I just wrote, that is what astronomers have observed.
Not only that, the author also appears to have a gross inability to describe the Bose-Einstein Condensate. The reality is that a condensate cloud could probably never exist in nature, and to call it the actual space-time stuff is absurd. The condensate cloud is more like the 5th state of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and Condensate cloud). Think of a Condensate cloud as the extreme opposite of plasma. Where one is really hot, the other only exist at supper cold temperatures. In fact, the Bose-Einstein cloud is the coldest thing we have ever created I think. At such a cold state of matter, time almost seems to stop. A really bizarre occurrence is when photons are shot into the cloud, and they appear to slow down while in the cloud, then speed up as they exit.
This same topic was publicly introduced in the Scientific American magazine a few months ago. The article was interesting, but at the end had this part about how the universe could actually be surrounded by a giant condensate cloud. The idea sounded really good until that part.
What this seems like to me is we humans have recently discovered this cosmic snaik-oil, the cold condensate cloud, and are now looking for a place to make it fit in the universe, no matter how sensational.
So how should they program in the recognition of "a pot of gold and rumplestiltskins" in the cats mouth?? Thats a good idea though, to maybe use this to teach the cats what you, the master, wants the cat to bring you.
Yeah after all, anyone who uses encryption must have something to hide, and if you have something to hide from the goverment, then you must be a criminal.
While we are talking about patents, I think I'll get a patent on factoring, but only factoring of numbers on thursdays. This way I can get my lawyers to go after anybody useing SSH on a Thursday.
Then I'm going to get a pantent on a method of looking at people ugly with my eyeballs, and sue people who give me dirty looks for my awsome patents.
The fish is a bit weird on the translations. Anyone got a link for a better translation engine?
Isn't Brazil another goverment that has been known to enbrace open source? However embracing open source, and pushing open source warez to your population is another. This sets a new presedence in that regard.
I think here in the USA, the goverment would rather do the oposite. Like the key escro stuff a few years ago, and now the DMCA.
I duno.... I guess I've been on /. for too long, and I'm jaded.... I know I can psuedo block them for free, but my point is that over the years... this is the one thing I would rather pay for, not the adds, but the idiot block. There is no /. filter that can figure out if a person is a troll, short of adding an AI to the slashcode backend to read post for me, but what is the point then of the moderation system...
I'd pay Andover to remove ALL ads, and also remove the anonymous cowards from my world. In other words, I'd pay to not have to read post by trolls, etc. I'm not certain if this was covered in the IRC, but I would have raised the issue if I wasn't at work, and able to participate.
just my two cents.... sorry if it is redundant... and I'm sure an anon coward will have to say something, just the people to prove my point about quality non-troll subscriptions.
A reward system needs to be enacted to entice the ISP's to provide unencumbered access to the 6-bone. ISP's that handle dial-up users can tunnel the ip4 traffic on behalf of their customers.
Talking about people who make comments without reading the articles. Like they only read the headlines, and then write a huge post about it. Sometimes the headlines imply something that is not accurate, and its funny to see people go off on the inacurate info.
yeah... they feel able to comment with only seeing the heading text.
yup, so how do we fight against hardware key loggers? If I found one in my PC, what could I do about it? Post pictures on Slashdot, hope the goverment doesn't get mad that I stole their hardware? I duno.
It was a joke, but yeah.. I'm sure if you live in a religion based rule of law, sending spam is not a good idea.
Well from the post you made,you obviously know a thing or two about history. But how can we take you serriously when you post as anonymous? Even using a nick suck as Jdizzy" is better than being AC, because I have integrity, even when I spew total crap... I still stand by my crap. Karma is not the basis of integrity, and if you want to protect that precious karma of yours, or as you claim, "simply don't need it", then you are still of the group of people who have no honour. Don't think for a minute that I think your a fool, obviously not. But I cannot take you serriouly either, as nobody takes AC's serriously.
PS. I wouldn't bother to look up your credentials if you posted true nickname, I don't have the time to give a damn, but as mark twain eliqently wrote once... you enter the room late and the world see that you are a fool, but when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt. The same situation exist for AC's who claim they are experts, they remove any credance of credibility. Even if you can prove that the founders DID NOT take influence from the greek socienty, who cares? You only reason to make a comment inthe first place was to ask if the USA took influence fromthe French, or the English. Besides being off topic, we are talking about Australian common law, I don't think you really had a point to start with. Your only intention was to discect my opinions. To write as an AC is ideal for you to hide. Go think about that the next time you plan to write a paragraph as an expert. Then again, when you were trolling my comments, you probably didn't think i would continue the silly question you ask.
I would say you have an insight into the subject, and that the subject is not too esoteric for me, your overtone of speech is.
I'd say a registered user who spews facts is better than to hide being an AC, and mind you the only reason he/she does is because he cannot stand on solid ground. He/She is not anonymous, just a coward. There is a big difference. Also, when you claim to be an expert at something, you stake your reputation on that claim, then why post as an AC unless you obviouly don't have the integrity to stand behind the supposed "expert" opinions they spew.
Besides, that person cannot prove that the Founders did NOT take influnce from the Greeks in the formation of the United States of America. All he has proven, and very acutly, is that the ancient greek socienty was not the only influnce in the formation of the USA goverment, and that is also very obvious too.
The fact is that this Common law or the King James era probably conflicts with modern laws in Australia, and will be thrown out in a summary manner.
I never claimed that the founders DID NOT take a que fromtheir environment, and maintain a qazi English system of rule. However, the fact remains that Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin both were into Greek Mythology, as most folks back in that day were of the classical education. Indeed, the basis of American politics is very much a rip-off of ancient Greek society. At that same note, one does not simply invent a new form of goverment over night. Thank you for you comment, but you obviously don't know what your talking about. Thanks anyways.
yuppers, in the begining only rich land owners could have any sort of influence of politics. As far as a myth goes, I'd counter that it is a myth that you perpetuate in yourself that we Americans are all the same, and hold the same values. Obviosly you have just made a comment based on an opinion, not a fact.
First of all, your credibility as an "expert" is under serious question since you refuse to identify yourself, until then your words are the vapor of an anonymous coward, and will be treated as such.
In responce: What does American system of government have to do with the British, or the French? If anything, you have illustrated my point. America is based on the ancient Greek system of rule, albeit a modified version. Actually you have taken my original point to a whole new low; I was talking about how the old laws of British rule were the basis for the American Revolution. The same class of laws might end up hurting the people in Australia. By people, I mean to say the assholes that use spam as a form of "free speech", and "free expression". Nobody likes spam, but everybody should be free. The issue is not the spam, it is the technologies that allows the spam to exist in the first place.
I really hope you don't actually believe all this.
What I "don't actually belive" is that this ancient law in australia will apply in a modern case. However, I do find some humor in what some people define as a "chattels" as defined in the quote from the old law:
The ancient law forbids a person from interfering with the goods and chattels of another person without their consent.
As if to say that a persons mear presence, or the act of speaking to another person can be construed as interferance. Since when do I need your permision to speak with you? Wouldn't the mear act of asking be held as interference?
In the USA, we have laws that prevent the abuse of power, such as this old law might. The idea of "freedom of speech". If a law like that were found on the book in America, it would probably be deleted, instead of used against the people. If the Australian goverment chooses to use this as a precendent, god help the people of Australia.
We all hate spammers, and the law is not the answer. The technologies being used needs to be improved, not the law. The creators of the SMTP system did not take security, or privacy into account when these systesm were first implemented back in the early days of the internet.