I would hope this has to go through the same clinical trials that introducing a drug would. The fact that you can "learn to be relaxed, focused. You improve." means that you're changing the frequency and wavelength of your brain's electrical output to comply with the requirements of this device.
Me, I'd want to be damned sure that wasn't going to introduce long-term side effects before using it.
It'll be in the Cloud! It'll be grand! "What does that mean?" Oh, it doesn't matter. It's in the Cloud! Duuuuude! The CLOUD, man!
It seems to me that the Cloud is the end result of network engineers being too successful in dumbing down "all that network" stuff into an amorphous cloud in their Visio diagrams, in order to allay the concerns of micromanaging PHBs.
My suggestion is that we start calling it the Clod. Then at least we could get some entertainment value of out if. "Ubuntu Desktop in the Clod" and "Moving all your mission-critical resources to the Clod!", or "How can the Clod help YOUR business to succeed?"
It doesn't make you a spammer. Just less trustworthy. Who people want to receive emails from is up to them. And if they decide they don't want emails from people who have registered their domain anonymously then so be it.
I agree, except for the part where a single policy maker can prevent millions of people from receiving those emails. It's not like individuals always have a choice in this.
ctually, the incidence of reported cases of unintended acceleration that have bitten Toyota is only very slightly higher than the number of cases that are reported in any other year, it's just that everyone is looking much more closely all of a sudden
Citation needed. I've been doing what digging I can on my lunch hour, and haven't seen anything to prove or disprove this.
e fact is, MOST cases of unintended acceleration ARE between the seat and the pedals.
I did not say otherwise. So even if we take this as given -- most != all. Therefore assuming that an incident is due to user error and dismissing the possibility of any other cause remains the wrong conclusion to draw. I don't know about you, but I'd get fired or demoted if I refused to accept responsibility for flaws in my systems with no means to prove my assertion.
o back and read about what happened to Audi in the 80's. 60 Minutes knowingly and purposefully rigged cars tested for their program to be unable to stop, and it almost put Audi of America out of business. Yet 60 Minutes was never charged with a serious crime.
I recall it vaguely, but it's also not really relevant to this discussion.
Because legislation of social ills has always had questionable success before. By making that law, now you require businesses to bear the cost of implementing whatever monitoring standards the government decides on (the cost of which is ultimately born by the consumer) -- effectively punishing them and us for the new requirements.
Alternatively, it's another nugget of power to hand the federal government if they're to be the ones doing the monitoring. And that costs all taxpayers.
I'd rather see ISPs start to do this because it's in their own best interest (and it is -- less bandwidth usage, better reputation), without being forced to by government decree. If the ISPs want to include a penalty in their service agreement for spam-generating systems, that would be great. If the government requires it... not so good. The government needs to stay out of matters social and technical.
SMTP - home users should only be able to connect to port 25 on their ISPs mail server.
I don't really understand why egress filtering like this isn't being done as a routine course of business these days.
Probably because of a large number of other email options out there, which offer SMTP and POP3 and aren't connected to the ISP. GMail for example...
.. the problem is between the pedals and the seat, morons.
Sure, because it's just coincidence that all of these issues are being reported now and never before. Your statement reminds me of how our offshore team replies to defect reports -- without even evaluating the facts, they'll take a cursory look at the situation and say "Nope, it was user error". Or "The logs don't show a problem, so everything's fine."
My reply to you is the same as it is to them: try engaging your brain once in a while instead of trying to shift blame. You might find it educational.
There would be years before it started to cause real problems - old, pointless laws being removed from the books at a good rate. Especially if adopted by states as well. It would only get difficult once those were all gone. Of course, someone would just have to make *this* law one of the two repealed at any time to put an end to it...
Alternatively, we'd just see more "regulations" that weren't laws at all...
But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going. I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water.
What kind of messed up structure did you let yourself in for? Shouldn't that have been researched before buying? Why would you make any kind of purchase where your own rights are dictated by the behavior of others?
No, the founding documents of the USA state that all rights come from the creator. "Copyright" is a law (well, set of laws) created by our society to temporarily (hah!) grant exclusive permission to one entity to copy something. However, that permission is not universal -- fair use and archives are examples of where copyright does not apply.
What Google chooses to allow on its servers is entirely up Google, and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Nor does it need to have anything to do with copyright.
I've tried to fight this fight. People don't get it. Oh, people here will -- though a disturbing number insist that antivirus is required -- but the populace at large won't ever understand what you've laid out above. I've given up on figuring out why. The rules are simple: 1) Don't use IE. [sorry, I know it can be safe, but this is way easier than trying to explain when/where/how it's safe] 2) don't install software unless it's from a trusted source. Your friends are not trusted sources. Nor are the links that they forward. Neither is twitter. 3) use a web-based email that does not download images by default -- minimally don't use Outlook/Outlook Express. 4) noscript is probably a good idea.
I've been virus free for decades now, following these basic rules, and without running A/V save a monthly offline Clam scan to make sure I haven't caught a case of the stupids when I wasn't looking.
I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance.
If brains are equated to IP, then the comparison is apt. Zombies eat the brains of the living, to the detriment of the living, just to prolong the zombies' pathetic existence. McBride wants to harvest the IP of others, to the detriment of the originators of said IP, only to prolong his pathetic existence.
Perhaps not coincidentally, this also reads a lot like the theme of Atlas Shrugged... except, you know, no zombies and all that.
- Then you're using false WHOIS info, which is against ICANN policy. It seems you're agreeing with the GP - WHOIS data gets abused, there's a good reason to hide it.
- Domain protection varies with registrar..ca, for example - it's turned on by default.
The PO box is valid and real. Heck, sometimes I even check it. You got me on the phone number though - perhaps a better alternative would be an internet-based phone account, still cheaper. And yes indeed, I do think that there's a good reason to hide it. My point is that a PO box is just as anonymous as domainsbyproxy et al. It still allows you to give legitimate contact information, not worry about phone calls, and is cheaper than many commercial services dedicated providing that service.
Great, so we already have one person planning on blocking.
very single domain involved in spamming or hosting landing pages ARE registered anonymously or have fake contact details, because the lowlife, scumsucking, asshole criminals behind them DO have something to hide. If you want to set up a mail server on your anonymously registered hobbyist domain... well... good luck with that. Just another thing you can thank the spammers for.
So obviously the correct response to this is to block anyone with an anonymous registration. Shall we apply similar logic to forums? If so , you wouldn't be allowed to post here without including your home name address and phone number. After all, forum spammers always register under fake names.
I get it though. It's definitely better to blame the victims for the troubles that spammers cause, and punish them in the name of punishing spammers. That's way better than implementing a real solution.
In order to avoid the overpriced fees for that, I just got a PO box and use an invalid phone number.
10 domains at $9/yr each for privacy gives $90/year extra. A PO box costs $45 or so a year. For any more than 5 domains, it's cheaper to go the PO Box route.
The next step is someone taking this too far and thinking "Great, I can incorporate this into my blacklists!" The problem here ist the underlying assumption that using anonymous registration makes you a spammer.
While that is certainly a use for anonymous registration, there are a lot of us who register anonymously to avoid having our names and addresses unnecessarily exposed to spam and risk of identity theft.
Once the new chrome beta offers true blocking support - where plugins can prevent undesired material from loading - then I'll give it another try. (If I can give up my "live bookmarks" in ff, that is.) Currently, plugins can prevent it from *displaying* - but the material still loads.
Don't you know you're supposed to be outraged that this genetic "property" of hers was somehow "stolen"?
Actually, I see a parallel here. I wonder how many of the people upset by this are the same ones who say that breaking copyright to download music isn't stealing, because nothing is actually taken...
I'll play devil's advocate here: what is it about your genetic code that makes it your property? We leave bits and pieces of ourselves all over, all the time. Free for anyone to pick up and use, without our knowledge or consent and with no expectation of either privacy or compensation for our genetic "property".
So there was no legal privacy issue, and no issue of legal property rights. And therefore the issue was moral or ethical, or that the legal system should be changed?
So you're implying that the law should encompass morality and ethics?
Just taking the viewpoint that the majority of comments will probably not take.
I'll bite. I'll come out and say it - I think it *is* correct. Playing an action game, or watching an action movie, gets blood pumping and adrenaline flowing. (for the more imaginative, so does reading a good book.) During adolescence this is especially likely to have a measurable effect on behavior, as these chemicals are flooding bodies at rates that are never again quite equaled except in the most extreme of circumstances. (Both as a result in changing physiology and maturing psychology.)
How many here did not go and half-pretend to beat the crap out of friends after watching a kung fu movie? Anyone else have memories of playing Contra and finding themselves jumping off of garages while pretending to shoot their neighb... erm, skip it, that last is probably just me.
By constantly throwing up the "correlationisnotcausation" attitude whenever a study like this comes along, we do two things. First, we say that we're sticking our fingers in our ears and refusing to listen. Second, we're letting everyone slide on the assumption that if there *was* aggression, it would be a Bad Thing.
By refusing to hear that there might be causation, we don't ask the next logical question. What does it matter? What are the harmful effects? Some rough-housing? Is that really a bad thing, or is it a fairly healthy reaction? In the absence of any real-life examples where such aggressiveness lead directly to real-life consequences, perhaps we should stop focusing on whether to games-aggression connection exists, and instead look at whether it's actually as harmful as everyone assumes it must be.
The truth is that aggression is a perfectly natural response -- "fight or flight" is built into us, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about 8-bit nintendo games or the quadrillion-poly games of tomorrow. But there has been no time spent focusing on the significance of this - instead we all loudly proclaim that no, there's no possible way we'd have a physical response to a simulated stressful activity. Until we get past the latter, we won't be able to learn the answers to the former.
Slashdot Mirror
I would hope this has to go through the same clinical trials that introducing a drug would. The fact that you can "learn to be relaxed, focused. You improve." means that you're changing the frequency and wavelength of your brain's electrical output to comply with the requirements of this device.
Me, I'd want to be damned sure that wasn't going to introduce long-term side effects before using it.
Thank you for spending your afternoon coming up with that.
It's important that available resources are maximized to their full potential, in the Clod.
It seems to me that the Cloud is the end result of network engineers being too successful in dumbing down "all that network" stuff into an amorphous cloud in their Visio diagrams, in order to allay the concerns of micromanaging PHBs.
My suggestion is that we start calling it the Clod. Then at least we could get some entertainment value of out if. "Ubuntu Desktop in the Clod" and "Moving all your mission-critical resources to the Clod!", or "How can the Clod help YOUR business to succeed?"
It doesn't make you a spammer. Just less trustworthy. Who people want to receive emails from is up to them. And if they decide they don't want emails from people who have registered their domain anonymously then so be it.
I agree, except for the part where a single policy maker can prevent millions of people from receiving those emails. It's not like individuals always have a choice in this.
ctually, the incidence of reported cases of unintended acceleration that have bitten Toyota is only very slightly higher than the number of cases that are reported in any other year, it's just that everyone is looking much more closely all of a sudden
Citation needed. I've been doing what digging I can on my lunch hour, and haven't seen anything to prove or disprove this.
e fact is, MOST cases of unintended acceleration ARE between the seat and the pedals.
I did not say otherwise. So even if we take this as given -- most != all. Therefore assuming that an incident is due to user error and dismissing the possibility of any other cause remains the wrong conclusion to draw. I don't know about you, but I'd get fired or demoted if I refused to accept responsibility for flaws in my systems with no means to prove my assertion.
o back and read about what happened to Audi in the 80's. 60 Minutes knowingly and purposefully rigged cars tested for their program to be unable to stop, and it almost put Audi of America out of business. Yet 60 Minutes was never charged with a serious crime.
I recall it vaguely, but it's also not really relevant to this discussion.
Alternatively, it's another nugget of power to hand the federal government if they're to be the ones doing the monitoring. And that costs all taxpayers.
I'd rather see ISPs start to do this because it's in their own best interest (and it is -- less bandwidth usage, better reputation), without being forced to by government decree. If the ISPs want to include a penalty in their service agreement for spam-generating systems, that would be great. If the government requires it... not so good. The government needs to stay out of matters social and technical.
SMTP - home users should only be able to connect to port 25 on their ISPs mail server. I don't really understand why egress filtering like this isn't being done as a routine course of business these days.
Probably because of a large number of other email options out there, which offer SMTP and POP3 and aren't connected to the ISP. GMail for example...
.. the problem is between the pedals and the seat, morons.
Sure, because it's just coincidence that all of these issues are being reported now and never before. Your statement reminds me of how our offshore team replies to defect reports -- without even evaluating the facts, they'll take a cursory look at the situation and say "Nope, it was user error". Or "The logs don't show a problem, so everything's fine."
My reply to you is the same as it is to them: try engaging your brain once in a while instead of trying to shift blame. You might find it educational.
Alternatively, we'd just see more "regulations" that weren't laws at all...
But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going. I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water.
What kind of messed up structure did you let yourself in for? Shouldn't that have been researched before buying? Why would you make any kind of purchase where your own rights are dictated by the behavior of others?
"...but not so big that people start to be strangled by it."
They always make new laws, and rarely get rid of old laws. The strangulation is inevitable.
Indeed. I keep thinking how cool it would be if a law were passed to the effect of "For every new bill signed into law, two laws must be repealed."
Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something?
Yes. Freedom for the people. Not freedom from the government.
No, the founding documents of the USA state that all rights come from the creator. "Copyright" is a law (well, set of laws) created by our society to temporarily (hah!) grant exclusive permission to one entity to copy something. However, that permission is not universal -- fair use and archives are examples of where copyright does not apply.
What Google chooses to allow on its servers is entirely up Google, and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Nor does it need to have anything to do with copyright.
I've been virus free for decades now, following these basic rules, and without running A/V save a monthly offline Clam scan to make sure I haven't caught a case of the stupids when I wasn't looking.
I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance.
*For extremely large values of "neighbor".
If brains are equated to IP, then the comparison is apt. Zombies eat the brains of the living, to the detriment of the living, just to prolong the zombies' pathetic existence. McBride wants to harvest the IP of others, to the detriment of the originators of said IP, only to prolong his pathetic existence.
Perhaps not coincidentally, this also reads a lot like the theme of Atlas Shrugged... except, you know, no zombies and all that.
- Then you're using false WHOIS info, which is against ICANN policy. It seems you're agreeing with the GP - WHOIS data gets abused, there's a good reason to hide it. - Domain protection varies with registrar. .ca, for example - it's turned on by default.
The PO box is valid and real. Heck, sometimes I even check it. You got me on the phone number though - perhaps a better alternative would be an internet-based phone account, still cheaper. And yes indeed, I do think that there's a good reason to hide it. My point is that a PO box is just as anonymous as domainsbyproxy et al. It still allows you to give legitimate contact information, not worry about phone calls, and is cheaper than many commercial services dedicated providing that service.
very single domain involved in spamming or hosting landing pages ARE registered anonymously or have fake contact details, because the lowlife, scumsucking, asshole criminals behind them DO have something to hide. If you want to set up a mail server on your anonymously registered hobbyist domain ... well ... good luck with that. Just another thing you can thank the spammers for.
So obviously the correct response to this is to block anyone with an anonymous registration. Shall we apply similar logic to forums? If so , you wouldn't be allowed to post here without including your home name address and phone number. After all, forum spammers always register under fake names.
I get it though. It's definitely better to blame the victims for the troubles that spammers cause, and punish them in the name of punishing spammers. That's way better than implementing a real solution.
10 domains at $9/yr each for privacy gives $90/year extra. A PO box costs $45 or so a year. For any more than 5 domains, it's cheaper to go the PO Box route.
While that is certainly a use for anonymous registration, there are a lot of us who register anonymously to avoid having our names and addresses unnecessarily exposed to spam and risk of identity theft.
Once the new chrome beta offers true blocking support - where plugins can prevent undesired material from loading - then I'll give it another try. (If I can give up my "live bookmarks" in ff, that is.) Currently, plugins can prevent it from *displaying* - but the material still loads.
Actually, I see a parallel here. I wonder how many of the people upset by this are the same ones who say that breaking copyright to download music isn't stealing, because nothing is actually taken...
Anyone else agree or disagree?
Yes.
I'll play devil's advocate here: what is it about your genetic code that makes it your property? We leave bits and pieces of ourselves all over, all the time. Free for anyone to pick up and use, without our knowledge or consent and with no expectation of either privacy or compensation for our genetic "property".
So there was no legal privacy issue, and no issue of legal property rights. And therefore the issue was moral or ethical, or that the legal system should be changed?
So you're implying that the law should encompass morality and ethics?
Just taking the viewpoint that the majority of comments will probably not take.
I'll bite. I'll come out and say it - I think it *is* correct. Playing an action game, or watching an action movie, gets blood pumping and adrenaline flowing. (for the more imaginative, so does reading a good book.) During adolescence this is especially likely to have a measurable effect on behavior, as these chemicals are flooding bodies at rates that are never again quite equaled except in the most extreme of circumstances. (Both as a result in changing physiology and maturing psychology.)
How many here did not go and half-pretend to beat the crap out of friends after watching a kung fu movie? Anyone else have memories of playing Contra and finding themselves jumping off of garages while pretending to shoot their neighb... erm, skip it, that last is probably just me.
By constantly throwing up the "correlationisnotcausation" attitude whenever a study like this comes along, we do two things. First, we say that we're sticking our fingers in our ears and refusing to listen. Second, we're letting everyone slide on the assumption that if there *was* aggression, it would be a Bad Thing.
By refusing to hear that there might be causation, we don't ask the next logical question. What does it matter? What are the harmful effects? Some rough-housing? Is that really a bad thing, or is it a fairly healthy reaction? In the absence of any real-life examples where such aggressiveness lead directly to real-life consequences, perhaps we should stop focusing on whether to games-aggression connection exists, and instead look at whether it's actually as harmful as everyone assumes it must be.
The truth is that aggression is a perfectly natural response -- "fight or flight" is built into us, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about 8-bit nintendo games or the quadrillion-poly games of tomorrow. But there has been no time spent focusing on the significance of this - instead we all loudly proclaim that no, there's no possible way we'd have a physical response to a simulated stressful activity. Until we get past the latter, we won't be able to learn the answers to the former.