Why in gods name do I need to specify my monitor's vertical and horizontal sync rates? Monitors have been plug n play for years now, why does X not use this info?
I haven't needed to do this in years. Incidentally, Windows needs to provide this information too, it just buries it way way deep. I've been screwed by windows guessing horizontal refresh wrong. Jaggies galore. Thank goodness for safe mode.
Having to enter it manually under almost any circumstance except for perhaps some exotic hardware is rather quaint and unfriendly though.
As I understand it, another key element apart from the number of syllables etc. is that the first two lines should paint up a scene, which then gets radically transformed in the last line.
It's a popular form, but really it just has to contain a nature theme, otherwise it's just another senryu poem. What I learned in grade school and some purists still demand, is not just a nature theme, but a season theme, and it actually has to contain a season word (change "Over the white ice" to "Over winter ice" and you're there, of course you lose the explicit color contrast). I don't know if there's that kind of rigidity anymore... poetry is really sort of a fungible medium of consensus.
Personally I'm a fan of Limericks:
There was a young man from Peru Whose limericks stopped at line two
Whaddya know, I've been pronouncing my favorite brand "Old English Furniture Polish" the wrong way all these years...
Re:Cut-and-Paste in X beats the competition...
on
X.org and XFree86 Reform
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> no need to press any key of any kind
Or ability. Windows, incidentally didn't come up with the idea or design of CUA keys, but Bill Gates thanks you for crediting another invention to him.
It's a decent bit of troll (though "affront to humankind" was a bit over the top), and I bit at first... I just wanted to clear up that bit at first, and also note that while the CUA clipboard can easily emulate the X style by automating some actions (in fact DOS boxes do something a lot like it, shame about that rectangular hilight tho), the way the X clipboard model is designed, it can't emulate CUA without "interrupting" a previously automatic process. Moral of the story, it's easier to automate than to hook.
For maximum confusion, Solaris tends to have both an Xclipboard and a copy buffer behind those cut/copy/paste keys on the sun keyboards. Sometimes you get surprising results from them.
Shareaza has no spyware, and supports blacklists of sources and names that can be shared, downloaded, and installed. The only thing missing is an easy interface to the first and third parts (first seems to be hand-editing XML, the third needs a separate dialog). Ratings are ok, but the hash isn't fuzzy so all they have to do is tweak a byte.
It has its own protocol (shamelessly and irritatingly called Gnutella2, even though it isn't related at all to gnutella), and also supports gnutella, edonkey/overnet, and torrent. Unfortunately... no fasttrack.
...discovered it made an excellent fire extinguisher(fill barrel with water, cork, aim, blammo- between the gust of air and the water/steam, you could do a serious number a good sized fire with just two cups of water).
This technique is now being used by firefighters to fight high-temp fires that are inaccessable by vehicles, such as in tunnels. Three or four blasts from the backpack fire extinguisher into a fire that's melting cars, and you can walk right into it. No weird chemicals needed either.
> If someone is attempting to kill you and your family (a wrong), you are certainly justified in killing them (a second wrong), resulting in the survival of you and your family (a right).
Since when is killing in self-defense a wrong? I see where you're going with this, but absolution of an act that is otherwise a crime almost always comes down to the doctrine of defense (of yourself or others). Other circumstances mitigate but don't absolve. There's also accident, though then it's more a problem of placing the blame for the wrong, not a problem in the moral judgement itself.
Regardless, I'm not sure the moral terpitude of of the complainant (the RIAA) has much bearing on the morality of the act (property "dilution", best term I can come up with for theft of an unlimited commodity). That's my detatched philosophical side talking. The rest of me says "anything that brings these bastards down"... Unfortunately I think it's just giving them ammunition.
Ahem. Re-read the entry on "discipline and bondage". You'll see that C is precisely not the sort of thing they're referring to. They're referring to languages that don't give you enough rope to hang yourself because they've used up all that rope tying you up and making you conform to their idea of architectural purity. A language that operates at the same level as C but doesn't give you pointers or bitfields because they're "icky" would be an example of a B&D language (Java doesn't need pointers because its "platform", the JVM, doesn't require them... though one could argue the java platform is indeed into BDSM)
> Many natural languages have case-sensitivity too - German, for example: fliegen (verb) and Fliegen (noun) are different words
One means fly, the other means flies (plural of fly). It might have been a little better if they weren't actual homonyms. English often has fun with this ambiguity, and I suppose those wacky Germans do too, but spoken German sure isn't case-sensitive. only an idiot would fail to grasp the or meaning context in a written sentence. i failed to capitalize the last couple sentences, and it would be marked down if it were a paper, but did the meaning of even the individual words change one bit?
IMHO the question should be turned around to "Why should anyone want case-insensitivity in a language?" (since, as you say, it has to be put there and requires more work in the part of the compiler and/or the compiler writer).
God forbid compiler writers would have to do any work to make the language work for the programmer and not the computer, eh? Compiler writers, by virtue of writing a compiler in the first place, are already arguing against the "simplest implementation". However, there is something to be said about having to argue for the benefits of a feature such as casefolding (which really isn't as simple as the advocates for it make it out to be). Were I writing another C (low-level systems language), I wouldn't even consider casefolding. Something like Java or python though: you bet I'd at least seriously consider it, even with all the complications it'd add.
> Because it makes sense that all symbols are uniquely identified from a set of characters, rather than each symbol being identified by a huge set of names (var, vaR, vAr, vAR, etc). There may be a need for a "canonical name", which is it? All lowercase? All uppercase?
LISP says all uppercase. VB says the case you DIM'd it or first used it with. Common idiom in VB is to always mix caps in vb when declaring, never reference it with caps, and let the editor correct the case. No case correction means you're referencing a nonexistent variable.
Arguments to change existing languages are misguided and futile. The argument is still a good one to keep in mind concerning new languages.
The introspection argument is a good one, though it's nothing canonical case doesn't cover. A case-folding associative array comparison will also work (assuming you can attach custom comparison functions to your assocarray types).
Java was flogged as the Great Leap Forward in programming, but turned out to be an anemic imperative language. It may grow a few features, but will never be what lisp or caml programmers are looking for. Its only hope comes in better IDE's and languages that compile to Java, at which point you only have to worry about the primitive ucsd p-code inspired runtime VM.
It doesn't take a college education or anything more than the old saw of "two wrongs don't make a right" to shoot down the obvious flaw in your reasoning. That said, fallacy and all, I still don't (never did) have any sympathy for the record companies who wage war against their own customers.
This was more of a an import tariff than a tax, coerced through extralegislative channels regardless (hey I just coined a new word). Either way mind you, all this will do is simply chase more people into using iTunes and the like.
Now, if we added a module to the ISS to make transparent aerogel, the ISS would fund itself! I mean, think about it... with how much it costs per cubic inch of the tinted stuff, and the fact that the ISS would have a monopoly on all transparent aerogel produced, you could charge practically whatever you wanted, and sell it to governments around the world.
> In other words, just don't use SPEWS. Use ANY list but SPEWS.
SPEWS is great for getting raw data, and one of the only blacklists left with detailed evidence files that contain actual spam samples (now that spamcop went from simple munging to nearly useless to all the way useless).
Just mind the timestamps, the data is not always all that fresh. Often even that is useful, it's nice to dig up a spammer's history and past associations that way.
Personally I'm a fan of Spamhaus, but you still can't automatically block based on SBL listings because they vary widely in quality. What Spamhaus does reasonably well is correlate the IP blocks with organizations, and none more illustrative a fashion than with ROKSO. ROKSO listed spam sources are pretty much "block on sight"... but there's no way to tell if a listing is for a ROKSO spammer other than visiting the URL in the TXT record. It's probably that way on purpose, to make you research it, but sometimes I just need something to jog my memory. And that's where SPEWS comes back in. SPEWS puts the name of the spamming organization in the TXT record, whereas SBL does not. When I see an IP with a SBL listing, I check the SPEWS TXT record. If it indicates a ROKSO spammer, no need to go further.
So for the obligatory bit of rudeness, stuff your righteous stance, some of us who do mail for a living know how to use blacklists as the advisory mechanisms they were intended to be. I'm truly sorry your friends or associates or whatever got screwed by an ISP that doesn't know better. SPEWS does not generally go off on righteous rants about why IP ranges are blacklisted and how everyone in there is an evil spammer. They simply indicate a range with spam problems, present the raw data, and encourage people to use other sources like spamcop to triangulate and pinpoint.
Information may want to be free, but some people are still into shooting the messenger if the message isn't always 100% clear or it doesn't place a disclaimer between every sentence.
Maybe you read at a different threshold. In +2 land, your comment sticks out as the first one hung up about how this product is from Israel. (Notice how the 'a' is before the 'e'?) I don't really care if you're an antisemite or not, what you do look like is a raving illiterate kook.
> but does python have any merit of its own, or do people only use it because they don't want to use perl?
This turned me off of python for a while, and through the 1.x series of python, the answer was pretty much that python indeed did not have much over perl. I'm astonished perl still doesn't have formal parameters, but that's more a glaring lack in perl than a novel feature in python. Lack of funky "decorations" on variables... again a perl wart most other languages don't already share.
Now python has generators, list comprehensions (coming soon, generator comprehensions), the stackless variant (alas never to be merged into python core I suspect), cycle detection in the GC (perl will still let them dangle), extensible builtin types (you can even subclass int if you want to)... There's a raft of PEP's on track for the next revision of Python, which comes out on a pretty regular schedule, so the language development tends to iterate faster than any other I've seen.
It still doesn't hold a candle to lisp or even scheme for sheer flexibility and potential expressiveness (with scheme I stress "potential", it takes lots of work to get comfortable with scheme), but for dynamic languages, it's currently my favorite. I still do use perl for things in CPAN that are nowhere else, e.g. Net::DNS has no credible equivalent in python.
Ruby looks interesting in some ways, but I don't like its total lack of a naming convention or namespace protection for "builtin" methods, nor the extra-funky syntax concerning blocks and yields. It also doesn't seem to work very well on windows, the parser seems to outright choke on line ending conventions with code pasted from a browser. It's also really poorly documented -- I realize english isn't the native language for the Ruby community, but even API documentation is sorely lacking in organization.
Take a cue from our overvelous drug laws and allow the seizure of all equipment used to violate the CAN SPAM act and/or purchased with profits from said violations.
If we were to take out drug laws as a template, they'd seize your computer, your car, your house, and hell, why not your clothes, for receiving the spam.
Prohibit ISPs (US Based ones at least) from offering net access to convicted spamers for a significant period (i.e. 5 years for the first violation, 20 years for the second, life for the third)
You're funding this due diligence process, right?
Crippling fines (i.e. $10,000 per message)
Why not fine 'em a zillion kajillion dollars per message? Why stop at any bounds of anything sensible? Why not a bullet in the head for the very first message?
Prison terms for repeat offenders
The law specifically mentions harsher penalties for repeat offenses. Have you read the CAN-SPAM act? It's actually not that hard to follow.
If any other laws were violated in the process of sending spam (e.g. planting trojans, breaking into other peoples machines for use as relays, etc) or the spam is advertising a illegal product make sure to prosocute under those laws too
It goes without saying, but the law actually does specifically mention the applicability of other charges.
2. Most of Microsoft's traditional licenses would be rampant fascism. We control everything, we are accountable for nothing, and we will not stop until there is nothing left. Hitler would be proud.
3. Just about any license agreement from any small company would be the equivalent to an Iraqi or Italian dictatorship (think Musolini, absolutely pathetic compared to Hitler, but still a complete control freak).
4. Shared source would be communism...
And you fucking cretins modded this amateur troll up to a +4?
But no cigar, as it is designed to bounce mail to nonexistent recipients, thus turning your box into a spam relay where all a spammer needs to is move the victim from RCPT TO to MAIL FROM.
Anyone but me not buy an Atari, but a Sears Tele-Games, which was the 2600 renamed, with a good number of the Atari brand cartridges also renamed?
I can't recall what all the renames were, but Combat was "Tanks Plus". Air-Sea Battle was something else too, I can't recall. Video Olympics was definitely something else.
Super Breakout, Demon Attack, and Yars Revenge, hands down the best games ever created for the 2600, pure rhythmic video hypnosis. Ahh nostalgia. Best to leave it there -- if I played it today I'd probably think "boy these games suck", retroactively ruining the mystique.
Wow, that just makes it easy doesn't it? Don't have to apply any logic or reason, just shout "monopolist" and run.
I remember crappy proprietary Appletalk cables costing 50 bucks a pop, and cases you had to crack open with a crowbar to get your disk out. Don't talk to me about abusive closed monopolies.
> I trust you're equally as accepting of those people who choose to WRITE IN ALL CAPS, or abbrvt lik u r txt mssging, or 3N463 1N 4 B17 0F 1337?
He never said that
> (and I've seen all three by email, the first two in business email).
They're losers.
> Some forms of expression are irritating to receive and just stupid.
I agree. Isn't this chopped-up style really annoying?
> Where you put quoted text isn't even some deep expression of your personality and life choices. It's just a freaking quotation.
Can I get an amen?
The above style is sometimes called the Usenet style. I used to be a great fan of it, used it myself, until I realized how horribly choppy and snippy it is. It's like interrupting every phrase someone says with "oh yeah?" and "says you". I'm happy to say it's on the decline, but I still see it, alas, on Usenet.
Ultimately neither style matters, as long as it's consistent.
At which point you shut down all possible dialog except through legal channels. Every company I've been with has had a policy that once something goes to legal, legal takes care of it from then on, because it's assumed that anything anyone else says will end up scrutinized in court.
Get hold of a product manager, who will eventually connect you to a development manager. You might need to speak to someone in corporate communications first -- it's their job to speak with random folks who have questions and concerns about their product. Don't make legal threats or insinuations, and don't assume everyone knows what's going on, because it might boil down to a single developer's brainfart or laziness. Hopefully you want to fix the problem, not start a crusade.
Keep in mind the developer might not even have known the code was GPL'd, he or she might have gotten it from someone else who was violating the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Why in gods name do I need to specify my monitor's vertical and horizontal sync rates? Monitors have been plug n play for years now, why does X not use this info?
I haven't needed to do this in years. Incidentally, Windows needs to provide this information too, it just buries it way way deep. I've been screwed by windows guessing horizontal refresh wrong. Jaggies galore. Thank goodness for safe mode.
Having to enter it manually under almost any circumstance except for perhaps some exotic hardware is rather quaint and unfriendly though.
As I understand it, another key element apart from the number of syllables etc. is that the first two lines should paint up a scene, which then gets radically transformed in the last line.
... poetry is really sort of a fungible medium of consensus.
It's a popular form, but really it just has to contain a nature theme, otherwise it's just another senryu poem. What I learned in grade school and some purists still demand, is not just a nature theme, but a season theme, and it actually has to contain a season word (change "Over the white ice" to "Over winter ice" and you're there, of course you lose the explicit color contrast). I don't know if there's that kind of rigidity anymore
Personally I'm a fan of Limericks:
There was a young man from Peru
Whose limericks stopped at line two
> Case-sensitive non-homonyms: polish and Polish.
Whaddya know, I've been pronouncing my favorite brand "Old English Furniture Polish" the wrong way all these years...
> no need to press any key of any kind
Or ability. Windows, incidentally didn't come up with the idea or design of CUA keys, but Bill Gates thanks you for crediting another invention to him.
It's a decent bit of troll (though "affront to humankind" was a bit over the top), and I bit at first... I just wanted to clear up that bit at first, and also note that while the CUA clipboard can easily emulate the X style by automating some actions (in fact DOS boxes do something a lot like it, shame about that rectangular hilight tho), the way the X clipboard model is designed, it can't emulate CUA without "interrupting" a previously automatic process. Moral of the story, it's easier to automate than to hook.
For maximum confusion, Solaris tends to have both an Xclipboard and a copy buffer behind those cut/copy/paste keys on the sun keyboards. Sometimes you get surprising results from them.
Shareaza has no spyware, and supports blacklists of sources and names that can be shared, downloaded, and installed. The only thing missing is an easy interface to the first and third parts (first seems to be hand-editing XML, the third needs a separate dialog). Ratings are ok, but the hash isn't fuzzy so all they have to do is tweak a byte.
... no fasttrack.
It has its own protocol (shamelessly and irritatingly called Gnutella2, even though it isn't related at all to gnutella), and also supports gnutella, edonkey/overnet, and torrent. Unfortunately
...discovered it made an excellent fire extinguisher(fill barrel with water, cork, aim, blammo- between the gust of air and the water/steam, you could do a serious number a good sized fire with just two cups of water).
This technique is now being used by firefighters to fight high-temp fires that are inaccessable by vehicles, such as in tunnels. Three or four blasts from the backpack fire extinguisher into a fire that's melting cars, and you can walk right into it. No weird chemicals needed either.
> If someone is attempting to kill you and your family (a wrong), you are certainly justified in killing them (a second wrong), resulting in the survival of you and your family (a right).
Since when is killing in self-defense a wrong? I see where you're going with this, but absolution of an act that is otherwise a crime almost always comes down to the doctrine of defense (of yourself or others). Other circumstances mitigate but don't absolve. There's also accident, though then it's more a problem of placing the blame for the wrong, not a problem in the moral judgement itself.
Regardless, I'm not sure the moral terpitude of of the complainant (the RIAA) has much bearing on the morality of the act (property "dilution", best term I can come up with for theft of an unlimited commodity). That's my detatched philosophical side talking. The rest of me says "anything that brings these bastards down"... Unfortunately I think it's just giving them ammunition.
Ahem. Re-read the entry on "discipline and bondage". You'll see that C is precisely not the sort of thing they're referring to. They're referring to languages that don't give you enough rope to hang yourself because they've used up all that rope tying you up and making you conform to their idea of architectural purity. A language that operates at the same level as C but doesn't give you pointers or bitfields because they're "icky" would be an example of a B&D language (Java doesn't need pointers because its "platform", the JVM, doesn't require them ... though one could argue the java platform is indeed into BDSM)
> Many natural languages have case-sensitivity too - German, for example: fliegen (verb) and Fliegen (noun) are different words
One means fly, the other means flies (plural of fly). It might have been a little better if they weren't actual homonyms. English often has fun with this ambiguity, and I suppose those wacky Germans do too, but spoken German sure isn't case-sensitive. only an idiot would fail to grasp the or meaning context in a written sentence. i failed to capitalize the last couple sentences, and it would be marked down if it were a paper, but did the meaning of even the individual words change one bit?
IMHO the question should be turned around to "Why should anyone want case-insensitivity in a language?" (since, as you say, it has to be put there and requires more work in the part of the compiler and/or the compiler writer).
God forbid compiler writers would have to do any work to make the language work for the programmer and not the computer, eh? Compiler writers, by virtue of writing a compiler in the first place, are already arguing against the "simplest implementation". However, there is something to be said about having to argue for the benefits of a feature such as casefolding (which really isn't as simple as the advocates for it make it out to be). Were I writing another C (low-level systems language), I wouldn't even consider casefolding. Something like Java or python though: you bet I'd at least seriously consider it, even with all the complications it'd add.
> Because it makes sense that all symbols are uniquely identified from a set of characters, rather than each symbol being identified by a huge set of names (var, vaR, vAr, vAR, etc). There may be a need for a "canonical name", which is it? All lowercase? All uppercase?
LISP says all uppercase. VB says the case you DIM'd it or first used it with. Common idiom in VB is to always mix caps in vb when declaring, never reference it with caps, and let the editor correct the case. No case correction means you're referencing a nonexistent variable.
Arguments to change existing languages are misguided and futile. The argument is still a good one to keep in mind concerning new languages.
The introspection argument is a good one, though it's nothing canonical case doesn't cover. A case-folding associative array comparison will also work (assuming you can attach custom comparison functions to your assocarray types).
Java was flogged as the Great Leap Forward in programming, but turned out to be an anemic imperative language. It may grow a few features, but will never be what lisp or caml programmers are looking for. Its only hope comes in better IDE's and languages that compile to Java, at which point you only have to worry about the primitive ucsd p-code inspired runtime VM.
Anyone agree ?
It doesn't take a college education or anything more than the old saw of "two wrongs don't make a right" to shoot down the obvious flaw in your reasoning. That said, fallacy and all, I still don't (never did) have any sympathy for the record companies who wage war against their own customers.
This was more of a an import tariff than a tax, coerced through extralegislative channels regardless (hey I just coined a new word). Either way mind you, all this will do is simply chase more people into using iTunes and the like.
Now, if we added a module to the ISS to make transparent aerogel, the ISS would fund itself! I mean, think about it... with how much it costs per cubic inch of the tinted stuff, and the fact that the ISS would have a monopoly on all transparent aerogel produced, you could charge practically whatever you wanted, and sell it to governments around the world.
How would you find it?
> In other words, just don't use SPEWS. Use ANY list but SPEWS.
... but there's no way to tell if a listing is for a ROKSO spammer other than visiting the URL in the TXT record. It's probably that way on purpose, to make you research it, but sometimes I just need something to jog my memory. And that's where SPEWS comes back in. SPEWS puts the name of the spamming organization in the TXT record, whereas SBL does not. When I see an IP with a SBL listing, I check the SPEWS TXT record. If it indicates a ROKSO spammer, no need to go further.
SPEWS is great for getting raw data, and one of the only blacklists left with detailed evidence files that contain actual spam samples (now that spamcop went from simple munging to nearly useless to all the way useless).
Just mind the timestamps, the data is not always all that fresh. Often even that is useful, it's nice to dig up a spammer's history and past associations that way.
Personally I'm a fan of Spamhaus, but you still can't automatically block based on SBL listings because they vary widely in quality. What Spamhaus does reasonably well is correlate the IP blocks with organizations, and none more illustrative a fashion than with ROKSO. ROKSO listed spam sources are pretty much "block on sight"
So for the obligatory bit of rudeness, stuff your righteous stance, some of us who do mail for a living know how to use blacklists as the advisory mechanisms they were intended to be. I'm truly sorry your friends or associates or whatever got screwed by an ISP that doesn't know better. SPEWS does not generally go off on righteous rants about why IP ranges are blacklisted and how everyone in there is an evil spammer. They simply indicate a range with spam problems, present the raw data, and encourage people to use other sources like spamcop to triangulate and pinpoint.
Information may want to be free, but some people are still into shooting the messenger if the message isn't always 100% clear or it doesn't place a disclaimer between every sentence.
Maybe you read at a different threshold. In +2 land, your comment sticks out as the first one hung up about how this product is from Israel. (Notice how the 'a' is before the 'e'?) I don't really care if you're an antisemite or not, what you do look like is a raving illiterate kook.
Welcome to slashdot, BTW.
> Real programmers directly input hexcodes using cat or copy con..
Amateur. Real programmers use nothing but S, K, and apply.
> but does python have any merit of its own, or do people only use it because they don't want to use perl?
... again a perl wart most other languages don't already share.
This turned me off of python for a while, and through the 1.x series of python, the answer was pretty much that python indeed did not have much over perl. I'm astonished perl still doesn't have formal parameters, but that's more a glaring lack in perl than a novel feature in python. Lack of funky "decorations" on variables
Now python has generators, list comprehensions (coming soon, generator comprehensions), the stackless variant (alas never to be merged into python core I suspect), cycle detection in the GC (perl will still let them dangle), extensible builtin types (you can even subclass int if you want to)... There's a raft of PEP's on track for the next revision of Python, which comes out on a pretty regular schedule, so the language development tends to iterate faster than any other I've seen.
It still doesn't hold a candle to lisp or even scheme for sheer flexibility and potential expressiveness (with scheme I stress "potential", it takes lots of work to get comfortable with scheme), but for dynamic languages, it's currently my favorite. I still do use perl for things in CPAN that are nowhere else, e.g. Net::DNS has no credible equivalent in python.
Ruby looks interesting in some ways, but I don't like its total lack of a naming convention or namespace protection for "builtin" methods, nor the extra-funky syntax concerning blocks and yields. It also doesn't seem to work very well on windows, the parser seems to outright choke on line ending conventions with code pasted from a browser. It's also really poorly documented -- I realize english isn't the native language for the Ruby community, but even API documentation is sorely lacking in organization.
Take a cue from our overvelous drug laws and allow the seizure of all equipment used to violate the CAN SPAM act and/or purchased with profits from said violations.
If we were to take out drug laws as a template, they'd seize your computer, your car, your house, and hell, why not your clothes, for receiving the spam.
Prohibit ISPs (US Based ones at least) from offering net access to convicted spamers for a significant period (i.e. 5 years for the first violation, 20 years for the second, life for the third)
You're funding this due diligence process, right?
Crippling fines (i.e. $10,000 per message)
Why not fine 'em a zillion kajillion dollars per message? Why stop at any bounds of anything sensible? Why not a bullet in the head for the very first message?
Prison terms for repeat offenders
The law specifically mentions harsher penalties for repeat offenses. Have you read the CAN-SPAM act? It's actually not that hard to follow.
If any other laws were violated in the process of sending spam (e.g. planting trojans, breaking into other peoples machines for use as relays, etc) or the spam is advertising a illegal product make sure to prosocute under those laws too
It goes without saying, but the law actually does specifically mention the applicability of other charges.
2. Most of Microsoft's traditional licenses would be rampant fascism. We control everything, we are accountable for nothing, and we will not stop until there is nothing left. Hitler would be proud.
3. Just about any license agreement from any small company would be the equivalent to an Iraqi or Italian dictatorship (think Musolini, absolutely pathetic compared to Hitler, but still a complete control freak).
4. Shared source would be communism
And you fucking cretins modded this amateur troll up to a +4?
> Qmail is pretty damn close.
But no cigar, as it is designed to bounce mail to nonexistent recipients, thus turning your box into a spam relay where all a spammer needs to is move the victim from RCPT TO to MAIL FROM.
Anyone but me not buy an Atari, but a Sears Tele-Games, which was the 2600 renamed, with a good number of the Atari brand cartridges also renamed?
I can't recall what all the renames were, but Combat was "Tanks Plus". Air-Sea Battle was something else too, I can't recall. Video Olympics was definitely something else.
Super Breakout, Demon Attack, and Yars Revenge, hands down the best games ever created for the 2600, pure rhythmic video hypnosis. Ahh nostalgia. Best to leave it there -- if I played it today I'd probably think "boy these games suck", retroactively ruining the mystique.
> Apple is not a convicted monopolist.
Wow, that just makes it easy doesn't it? Don't have to apply any logic or reason, just shout "monopolist" and run.
I remember crappy proprietary Appletalk cables costing 50 bucks a pop, and cases you had to crack open with a crowbar to get your disk out. Don't talk to me about abusive closed monopolies.
Here's what Jeeves says. Also came up with:
Search for WHY? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY?? on other sites:
Search Local Yellow Page Listings for WHY? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY?? sponsored by SMARTpages.com
Hey at least it didn't offer to show me where I could buy THE LOVE OF GOD online...
> I trust you're equally as accepting of those people who choose to WRITE IN ALL CAPS, or abbrvt lik u r txt mssging, or 3N463 1N 4 B17 0F 1337?
He never said that
> (and I've seen all three by email, the first two in business email).
They're losers.
> Some forms of expression are irritating to receive and just stupid.
I agree. Isn't this chopped-up style really annoying?
> Where you put quoted text isn't even some deep expression of your personality and life choices. It's just a freaking quotation.
Can I get an amen?
The above style is sometimes called the Usenet style. I used to be a great fan of it, used it myself, until I realized how horribly choppy and snippy it is. It's like interrupting every phrase someone says with "oh yeah?" and "says you". I'm happy to say it's on the decline, but I still see it, alas, on Usenet.
Ultimately neither style matters, as long as it's consistent.
> Top posting is a life-style choice.
Anything's better than inline-posting.
>> Nooooo! Argh, this will only encourage top-posting.
You get my drift?
> I would send the email to their General Counsel
At which point you shut down all possible dialog except through legal channels. Every company I've been with has had a policy that once something goes to legal, legal takes care of it from then on, because it's assumed that anything anyone else says will end up scrutinized in court.
Get hold of a product manager, who will eventually connect you to a development manager. You might need to speak to someone in corporate communications first -- it's their job to speak with random folks who have questions and concerns about their product. Don't make legal threats or insinuations, and don't assume everyone knows what's going on, because it might boil down to a single developer's brainfart or laziness. Hopefully you want to fix the problem, not start a crusade.
Keep in mind the developer might not even have known the code was GPL'd, he or she might have gotten it from someone else who was violating the GPL.