Then it doesn't matter if the cookie is set. And McCain's statement "I don't use cookies" can still be true, even if his site sets them. Unused cookies get set all the time. Most web servers set them by default. But just because they're set doesn't mean the site uses them.
Here's how to determine if you're dealing with complete scientific quackery or not.
Do you mean to say the part about slipping into another dimension wasn't a dead giveaway?
Here's how you really tell the quacks from the scientists: real scientists don't give press conferences promising applications of physics they don't yet understand.
Screw Gamestop. They made EB Games stop buying used PC games after the acquisition. Gamestop managers know barely enough to tie their own shoes and get to the store.
Of course, you don't own the disk, you are assigned a license that is in force only so long as the disk is readable, not that this condition is spelled out in the "contract" you never agreed to.
Anybody stupid enough to put a game console out that so easily damages disks ought to bite the bullet and perform a recall. But of course that would be the right thing to do, the thing that would treat customers with respect. But of course with customers like you ready to blame yourself for the inferior product you bought, why the hell should they care?
But it was really just bad luck that the bug happened to be found in the Windows WMF library and not, say, its Unix/X11 equivalent. Or libpng, or zlib, or whatever.
And what would the Unix/X11 equivalent be? WMF is not a image format, it's a list of procedures to call and the parameters to pass them. On Unix/X11 the equivalent might be perl. How many Unix systems allow arbitrary perl code to execute automatically upon loading a file embedded in a web page? Which one are you using? Remind me to steer clear of it.
If your clients would not be embarassed by the revelation that they help finance a spammer-friendly ISP
That is SPEWS' opinion, not a fact, and in any event, I would be fired for insulting a client like that, whether or not it is true. It is immaterial to our business relationship who they get their email from. To taint our actual business relationship on account of rumors spread by SPEWS about other alleged business relationships would be the height of foolishness.
Ha! I just got this CD recently, but ripped it into iTunes on my Mac mini, so it was no sweat. I should take it back as defective now that I know it is.:)
Headache, delays, and hassle. And embarassment for the sender.
When a client runs afoul of our spam filter - with or without SPEWS enabled - it is not the client who apologizes to us because we blocked their email. We apologize to them and whitelist them. I assure you none of them have been embarassed. This is not at all like sending a postal mail with a prison return address. SPEWS is like having a belligerent moron with a chip on his shoulder for a bouncer.
A vigilante is someone who takes, or advocates taking, law enforcement into their own hands.
Hey, guess what - there are laws against spamming.
But my main point is that punitive DNS blacklists like SPEWS are ineffective. The people that need to communicate with the blacklisted ISP customer will simply whitelist that customer, even if they use SPEWS. Try telling a customer or client that you won't service their account because SPEWS says their ISP hosts spammers, and so you won't be receiving their emails. See if you keep your customer very long. In the end, what's more important to my company is the business we do with our customers, not who our customers get their email service from.
By "innocent bystanders," do you mean people helping to finance an ISP which caters to spammers?
Let's see Spews block all Verizon DSL and Comcast cable modem pools. 90% of the spam my filter blocks comes from there, yet they are not liosted on Spews. Bunch of fucking pussies, just because Comcast and Verizon have real lawyers.
So you would prefer that the ISPs not shut down spammers?
It doesn't matter if it's after the event. The spammer is gone, and all Spews does is punish innocent bystanders who spammed no one.
So how do you fight against such practices? You blacklist the ISP's IP blocks.
BOUNCE THE SPAMS. I do not use Spews because of the unacceptably high false-positive rate. I spent more time adding whitelist entries than I cared to. They cannot be trusted not to drag me and my site into their little blood feuds. My spam filter, on the other hand, is very trustworthy and does not tilt at windwmills.
I unwittingly bought a grey-market Viewsonic VX900 LCD a few years ago from a supposedly reputable dealer I found on Pricewatch. It needed repairs after the warranty expired, which I had no problem paying for. Problem is, Viewsonic has the serial number on their list of stolen merchandise, and promised me they would keep the monitor if I sent it in for repairs, unless I could produce a purchase invoice. I couldn't. It was two years old and out of warranty and I no longer had the invoice, and can't even remember the fly-by-night reseller's name. Now I have a repairable monitor which I can't get repaired. Fortunately I found a online source for the inverter card part it needed, and was able to repair it myself.
I don't buy from the cheapest dealer on Pricewatch anymore. I don't buy from any dealer on Pricewatch any more. I just go to Newegg. Now I have no problem remembering where I bought something or producing invoices for past purchases. Newegg keeps it all there for me on my online account.
Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression.
Says you. Got a court case to cite in support of your position? Didn't think so. It's just your opinion versus 200+ years of jurisprudence. First of all, money is not speech. Second of all:
What democracy needs...
You said democracy was a sham to provide cover for authoritatarian and favoritist regimes. Who is favored? The people with money. So you want to "reform democracy" by entirely removing the meager limitations on how the wealthy can influence the political process, thus ensuring that their influence will become even more intractibly entrenched.
But it would be suicide for a company to admit, even tacitly, that their products aren't "mission critical".
I don't think so. Almost every software vendor admits just such a thing explicitly in the EULA, in big capital letters (which no one reads). All warranties are disclaimed to the maximum extent that the law allows, especially any warranties about fitness for a particular use. If that isn't an admission that their products are not "mission critical" then I don't know what such an admission would look like, if not exactly like the EULA warranty disclaimer.
The EULA should be printed on the box, or be accessible before opening the package or installing anything. But of course, that would never happen either, because software companies are in a great position to have their cake and eat it too, in a way that no other industry can. Why change?
The fact of the matter is that if Microsoft were to 'patch everything', we would have a lot more to complain about. People should stop asking for stupid things and be realistic.
OK, how about Microsoft stops marketing their products as trustworthy? That's comparatively far easier to acoomplish, don't you agree?
Sony BMG says it asked the two software companies to investigate and find a solution to the problem. "From the moment our people learned that F-Secure had identified a potential problem we contacted our vendor and in no uncertain terms told them you have to get with F-Secure and find out what needs to be done about it," says Daniel Mandil, Sony BMG's general counsel.
If this is the kind of professional their general counsel is, they need to clean house. It is totally unacceptable to blame a contractor for the fuckup you sold to your own customers, and any lawyer worth an hour's consulting fees should know this. The customers harmed by this action don't have any relationship with the contractor, they have one with Sony BMG. If I was their general counsel, I certainly would not be giving this kind of pass-the-buck statement to the press.
"Due to the use of this technique, users can no longer safely double-click MP3 files in Mac OS X. This same technique could be used with JPEG and GIF files, though no such cases of infected graphic files have yet been seen."
All my *important* stuff is on the Linux half of this machine, and since Microsoft *still* doesn't have an ext3 filesystem driver, it's safe from the kiddies.
It isn't Microsoft's responsibility to supply a ext3 file system driver. It's ours (the Linux geeks), and we did. Here it is: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd
If someone can root your box, they can install this driver, so your Linux stuff is not safe from kiddies, never was.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it doesn't matter if the cookie is set. And McCain's statement "I don't use cookies" can still be true, even if his site sets them. Unused cookies get set all the time. Most web servers set them by default. But just because they're set doesn't mean the site uses them.
Yeah, stuck in some old transporter buffer.
Here's how to determine if you're dealing with complete scientific quackery or not.
Do you mean to say the part about slipping into another dimension wasn't a dead giveaway?
Here's how you really tell the quacks from the scientists: real scientists don't give press conferences promising applications of physics they don't yet understand.
Screw Gamestop. They made EB Games stop buying used PC games after the acquisition. Gamestop managers know barely enough to tie their own shoes and get to the store.
Of course, you don't own the disk, you are assigned a license that is in force only so long as the disk is readable, not that this condition is spelled out in the "contract" you never agreed to.
Anybody stupid enough to put a game console out that so easily damages disks ought to bite the bullet and perform a recall. But of course that would be the right thing to do, the thing that would treat customers with respect. But of course with customers like you ready to blame yourself for the inferior product you bought, why the hell should they care?
But it was really just bad luck that the bug happened to be found in the Windows WMF library and not, say, its Unix/X11 equivalent. Or libpng, or zlib, or whatever.
And what would the Unix/X11 equivalent be? WMF is not a image format, it's a list of procedures to call and the parameters to pass them. On Unix/X11 the equivalent might be perl. How many Unix systems allow arbitrary perl code to execute automatically upon loading a file embedded in a web page? Which one are you using? Remind me to steer clear of it.
If your clients would not be embarassed by the revelation that they help finance a spammer-friendly ISP
That is SPEWS' opinion, not a fact, and in any event, I would be fired for insulting a client like that, whether or not it is true. It is immaterial to our business relationship who they get their email from. To taint our actual business relationship on account of rumors spread by SPEWS about other alleged business relationships would be the height of foolishness.
So no, they don't get embarassed.
The Coral - The Invisible Invasion
:)
Ha! I just got this CD recently, but ripped it into iTunes on my Mac mini, so it was no sweat. I should take it back as defective now that I know it is.
Headache, delays, and hassle. And embarassment for the sender.
When a client runs afoul of our spam filter - with or without SPEWS enabled - it is not the client who apologizes to us because we blocked their email. We apologize to them and whitelist them. I assure you none of them have been embarassed. This is not at all like sending a postal mail with a prison return address. SPEWS is like having a belligerent moron with a chip on his shoulder for a bouncer.
A vigilante is someone who takes, or advocates taking, law enforcement into their own hands.
Hey, guess what - there are laws against spamming.
But my main point is that punitive DNS blacklists like SPEWS are ineffective. The people that need to communicate with the blacklisted ISP customer will simply whitelist that customer, even if they use SPEWS. Try telling a customer or client that you won't service their account because SPEWS says their ISP hosts spammers, and so you won't be receiving their emails. See if you keep your customer very long. In the end, what's more important to my company is the business we do with our customers, not who our customers get their email service from.
If customers leave because the ISP is always on SPEWS, then the ISP suffers financially. That's a good thing.
And when customers don't leave? And if the ISP doesn't suffer financially?
The idea is to punish the ISP.
Then don't object when we call them vigilantes. You've just admitted they are.
If your ISP is on SPEWS, it's probably because they turn a blind eye to spam.
And don't have professional attorneys on staff (*cough* verizon *cough* comcast).
Dude, my site gets 50 spams a MINUTE.
By "innocent bystanders," do you mean people helping to finance an ISP which caters to spammers?
Let's see Spews block all Verizon DSL and Comcast cable modem pools. 90% of the spam my filter blocks comes from there, yet they are not liosted on Spews. Bunch of fucking pussies, just because Comcast and Verizon have real lawyers.
So you would prefer that the ISPs not shut down spammers?
It doesn't matter if it's after the event. The spammer is gone, and all Spews does is punish innocent bystanders who spammed no one.
So how do you fight against such practices? You blacklist the ISP's IP blocks.
BOUNCE THE SPAMS. I do not use Spews because of the unacceptably high false-positive rate. I spent more time adding whitelist entries than I cared to. They cannot be trusted not to drag me and my site into their little blood feuds. My spam filter, on the other hand, is very trustworthy and does not tilt at windwmills.
Or name the planet after genitelia like Uranus.
Been on the bus long, sailor? How's your friend Dorothy been? I like your blue hanky, it suits you.
I see. So, just like the communist utopias, unadulterated capitalism, too, is a pipe dream, dosconnected from reality, and will never be realized.
I unwittingly bought a grey-market Viewsonic VX900 LCD a few years ago from a supposedly reputable dealer I found on Pricewatch. It needed repairs after the warranty expired, which I had no problem paying for. Problem is, Viewsonic has the serial number on their list of stolen merchandise, and promised me they would keep the monitor if I sent it in for repairs, unless I could produce a purchase invoice. I couldn't. It was two years old and out of warranty and I no longer had the invoice, and can't even remember the fly-by-night reseller's name. Now I have a repairable monitor which I can't get repaired. Fortunately I found a online source for the inverter card part it needed, and was able to repair it myself.
I don't buy from the cheapest dealer on Pricewatch anymore. I don't buy from any dealer on Pricewatch any more. I just go to Newegg. Now I have no problem remembering where I bought something or producing invoices for past purchases. Newegg keeps it all there for me on my online account.
Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression.
Says you. Got a court case to cite in support of your position? Didn't think so. It's just your opinion versus 200+ years of jurisprudence. First of all, money is not speech. Second of all:
What democracy needs...
You said democracy was a sham to provide cover for authoritatarian and favoritist regimes. Who is favored? The people with money. So you want to "reform democracy" by entirely removing the meager limitations on how the wealthy can influence the political process, thus ensuring that their influence will become even more intractibly entrenched.
Brilliant!
Why not just open the floodgates and let the market create what it needs?
Because the market is not your girlfriend.
Because the market is not Santa Claus.
Because the market is not a creative entity.
Because the market is dumb as shit, and easily influenced.
Because the market is not a panacea for every societial ill.
(except for extreme forms of free-market-fetishism, in which social ills are wished away)
But it would be suicide for a company to admit, even tacitly, that their products aren't "mission critical".
I don't think so. Almost every software vendor admits just such a thing explicitly in the EULA, in big capital letters (which no one reads). All warranties are disclaimed to the maximum extent that the law allows, especially any warranties about fitness for a particular use. If that isn't an admission that their products are not "mission critical" then I don't know what such an admission would look like, if not exactly like the EULA warranty disclaimer.
The EULA should be printed on the box, or be accessible before opening the package or installing anything. But of course, that would never happen either, because software companies are in a great position to have their cake and eat it too, in a way that no other industry can. Why change?
The fact of the matter is that if Microsoft were to 'patch everything', we would have a lot more to complain about. People should stop asking for stupid things and be realistic.
OK, how about Microsoft stops marketing their products as trustworthy? That's comparatively far easier to acoomplish, don't you agree?
If this is the kind of professional their general counsel is, they need to clean house. It is totally unacceptable to blame a contractor for the fuckup you sold to your own customers, and any lawyer worth an hour's consulting fees should know this. The customers harmed by this action don't have any relationship with the contractor, they have one with Sony BMG. If I was their general counsel, I certainly would not be giving this kind of pass-the-buck statement to the press.
Any time you as a seller of a good price an item at other than a profit-maximizing value, your profit decreases.
A=A
Randian arithmetic. Snore.
Incorrect: http://www.macnn.com/articles/04/04/08/trojan.hor
It's not an audio CD, it's a mixed-mode CD with data and audio.
All my *important* stuff is on the Linux half of this machine, and since Microsoft *still* doesn't have an ext3 filesystem driver, it's safe from the kiddies.
It isn't Microsoft's responsibility to supply a ext3 file system driver. It's ours (the Linux geeks), and we did. Here it is: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd
If someone can root your box, they can install this driver, so your Linux stuff is not safe from kiddies, never was.