If this is not posted to get +5 idiotic, then I call bullshit. Very few people with masters have that problem. If it's true, then it's your attitude that prevents you from excelling.
One of the things that I always loved about the "hacker" culture of the 80's and early 90's was that the *only* thing that mattered was your ability. The only bechmark was "could you do it", and, since most of the stuff was done online, color, race, gender, and physical attributes of any kind were just not issues.
There was no way to tell what another person looked like online unless they told you.
Computer culture, more than almost any other is the most un-biased group of people you will meet (as long as you leave out the MS vs. M$ debate)
/*
The reason these attacks spread is that the binary code is essentially a monoculture crop -- all clones of each other. Why not take the SID of a system, or some GUID, and use it to morph all the binary images on a system in a unique way for that system?
*/
I think if MS did that, it may slow down the search for exploits until someone comes up with the de-scrambler. If the starting point of the scramble is on the system, the hackers will have a starting point to break it. From there it's just a matter of time until someone comes out with the crack. Just like any copy protection scheme.
DenDude
/* A single law holding the engines financially liable for any losses incurred by a customer steered by their sites after fraud has been reported will cure the problem if not overnight as soon as the first lawsuit is successful. */
That's an awful idea. Akin IMO to holding the beer companies liable for a drunk driver, or a firearm manufacturer liable for the mis-use of it's product. If, however, you can show that the search engines are in league financially with the offending companies, (as in owned by the same company) then they share some of the blame. But if I own a search engine, and it gets spammed with 5 zillion messages raving about a thief, it's not my responsibilty to ensure the reviews are objective.
If you want to hold the engines accountable, then after you sue that beer company because of the drunk driver, you should go after ABC for advertising it while knowing that drinking beer and driving can be dangerous. Then let's sue the NFL for having an "official beer of the Super Bowl". Then let's sue the stores that sell the beer. then let's sue everyone who's purchased beer, because they helped to prop up the beer company, thereby allowing the company to sell to the one retard that drives drunk.[/reductio ad absurdum]
OR... we can just drive the crap companies out of business by educating online consumers. We [the geeks] should be helping people out with this stuff, not trying to shut down search engines that are trying to make a buck.
/* Why are you wasting your time posting on slashdot when you should be trying to sneak your balls out of your wife's purse? *//* I'd have to ask something along the lines of "when was the last time anyone got up in arms and posted three articles a week about the distinct lack of males interested in crocheting or knitting". */
If I had mod points you'd get 'em all today.
Since you are a male, you have no excuse for your lack of omnipotence. How dare you blame the women for not explaining what they want. We should all just *know* what they want.
Amen brother!
/*
Main stream media has been taking the content they choose and calling it their own for some time. Unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be anyway of controlling this because the media has a vested interest maintaining the status quo.
*/
And that's exactly why I'd rather read anything by Stephen Glass than almost anything in the mainstream press. At least Glass's stuff was funny, original, errr.... made up and passed off as real. But at least it wasn't stolen, because that would be bad.
And "journalists" have the nerve to loudly wonder why the average American looks at them like they are the offspring of a used car salesman and a lawyer.
I have been reading this guy's stuff for a couple years, and it's already happened to him a couple times. Just recently, there was a radio guy that stole his piece about Cameron Diaz : http://maddox.xmission.com/.
I think part of the problem is that most of the print press doesn't realize how many people actually read this stuff. Maddox has a counter on each of his articles that shows unique visitors, and at the time of this radio guy ripping him off, this article already had 312,000 visitors, and over 100 million total for his site.
/* Unfortunately, in order to file a lawsuit, you need nothing even resembling a legal case. All you need is a piece of paper, an envelope and a stamp. Lawyer is optional, though use of one during the creation of a lawsuit greatly increases the odds that the mark will settle. Welcome to the US of A, where free market means you're free to be reamed by lawyers from any market. */
You are correct. I guess what I meant was how can they do it and expect to win. There's another post here somewhere that talks about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP SLAPP lawsuits. I didn't consider that.
What I don't get is how can they sue someone (and have any chance of winning) just because someone calls them spyware? It seems to me that if they can sue for that, then anyone here can sue slashdot mods for labeling them trolls.
My questions would be:
Is there one specific definition of spyware that they use in the lawsuit.
Would Yahoo sue you if you called yahoo messenger spyware?
Would they have grounds?
Is spyware so much more of a perjorative than adware that it's a sue-worthy distinction?
Also, the eula's of all of these garbage programs can't possibly be considered informed consent... could they?
And finally, as a programmer, it just flat out pisses me off that people use their coding talents (and I see it as a talent as well as a skill) for such a crappy cause.
Shaming people into doing the right thing can work wonders. Think of the bus boycott. This would probably fall under the "bully censoring" of which you speak. One of the reasons we don't see klansmen running around announcing themselves as such, is because it has been made (mostly) societally (sp) unacceptable. This was also done by ridiculing and shaming those involved. There is nothing wrong with this, as the other side is able to debate the issue as well.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the things that I always loved about the "hacker" culture of the 80's and early 90's was that the *only* thing that mattered was your ability. The only bechmark was "could you do it", and, since most of the stuff was done online, color, race, gender, and physical attributes of any kind were just not issues. There was no way to tell what another person looked like online unless they told you.
Computer culture, more than almost any other is the most un-biased group of people you will meet (as long as you leave out the MS vs. M$ debate)
I think if MS did that, it may slow down the search for exploits until someone comes up with the de-scrambler. If the starting point of the scramble is on the system, the hackers will have a starting point to break it. From there it's just a matter of time until someone comes out with the crack. Just like any copy protection scheme. DenDude
/* unassuming office of Steve Wozniak, whom many consider the father of the personal computer.*/
There have been so many people called the "father of the personal computer", that I'd hate to be seen with the mother
ba-da-bump
/* A single law holding the engines financially liable for any losses incurred by a customer steered by their sites after fraud has been reported will cure the problem if not overnight as soon as the first lawsuit is successful. */
That's an awful idea. Akin IMO to holding the beer companies liable for a drunk driver, or a firearm manufacturer liable for the mis-use of it's product. If, however, you can show that the search engines are in league financially with the offending companies, (as in owned by the same company) then they share some of the blame. But if I own a search engine, and it gets spammed with 5 zillion messages raving about a thief, it's not my responsibilty to ensure the reviews are objective.
If you want to hold the engines accountable, then after you sue that beer company because of the drunk driver, you should go after ABC for advertising it while knowing that drinking beer and driving can be dangerous. Then let's sue the NFL for having an "official beer of the Super Bowl". Then let's sue the stores that sell the beer. then let's sue everyone who's purchased beer, because they helped to prop up the beer company, thereby allowing the company to sell to the one retard that drives drunk.[/reductio ad absurdum]
OR... we can just drive the crap companies out of business by educating online consumers. We [the geeks] should be helping people out with this stuff, not trying to shut down search engines that are trying to make a buck.
/* Why are you wasting your time posting on slashdot when you should be trying to sneak your balls out of your wife's purse? */ /* I'd have to ask something along the lines of "when was the last time anyone got up in arms and posted three articles a week about the distinct lack of males interested in crocheting or knitting". */
If I had mod points you'd get 'em all today.
Since you are a male, you have no excuse for your lack of omnipotence. How dare you blame the women for not explaining what they want. We should all just *know* what they want.
Amen brother!
/* Main stream media has been taking the content they choose and calling it their own for some time. Unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be anyway of controlling this because the media has a vested interest maintaining the status quo. */
And that's exactly why I'd rather read anything by Stephen Glass than almost anything in the mainstream press. At least Glass's stuff was funny, original, errr.... made up and passed off as real. But at least it wasn't stolen, because that would be bad.
And "journalists" have the nerve to loudly wonder why the average American looks at them like they are the offspring of a used car salesman and a lawyer.
I have been reading this guy's stuff for a couple years, and it's already happened to him a couple times. Just recently, there was a radio guy that stole his piece about Cameron Diaz : http://maddox.xmission.com/.
I think part of the problem is that most of the print press doesn't realize how many people actually read this stuff. Maddox has a counter on each of his articles that shows unique visitors, and at the time of this radio guy ripping him off, this article already had 312,000 visitors, and over 100 million total for his site.
/* Unfortunately, in order to file a lawsuit, you need nothing even resembling a legal case. All you need is a piece of paper, an envelope and a stamp. Lawyer is optional, though use of one during the creation of a lawsuit greatly increases the odds that the mark will settle. Welcome to the US of A, where free market means you're free to be reamed by lawyers from any market. */
You are correct. I guess what I meant was how can they do it and expect to win. There's another post here somewhere that talks about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP SLAPP lawsuits. I didn't consider that.
Also, the eula's of all of these garbage programs can't possibly be considered informed consent... could they?
And finally, as a programmer, it just flat out pisses me off that people use their coding talents (and I see it as a talent as well as a skill) for such a crappy cause.
Shaming people into doing the right thing can work wonders. Think of the bus boycott. This would probably fall under the "bully censoring" of which you speak. One of the reasons we don't see klansmen running around announcing themselves as such, is because it has been made (mostly) societally (sp) unacceptable. This was also done by ridiculing and shaming those involved. There is nothing wrong with this, as the other side is able to debate the issue as well.