And dibs on how long it'll be before we see a parallel structure to the "editor cabal" problem they already have.
I'll say.
"We can’t do it like that because of policy X?" -- "Where does it say that? Who decided that?" -- "It doesn’t say that anywhere, and we the cabal decided that policy. It’s not open to discussion; this is not a majority-vote thing."
And dibs on how long it'll be before we see a parallel structure to the "editor cabal" problem they already have.
Iâ(TM)ll say.
âoeWe canâ(TM)t do it like that because of policy X?â â" âoeWhere does it say that? Who decided that?â â" âoeIt doesnâ(TM)t say that anywhere, and we the cabal decided that policy. Itâ(TM)s not open to discussion; this is not a majority-vote thing.â
They do, but Persian has a ton of Arabic loanwords. Sort of like how knowing French (or Spanish or Italian) will let you understand many words in English. (Or for some kinds of vocabulary, knowing Greek, especially in medicine and philosophy.)
At first I thought that “Oh Just One” referred to the fact that there can be only one search engine (as in “there can be just one”), but I’m fairly sure it means “O Just One” in the sense of a person who is just, based on my limited Arabic.
1) Fully open source with lack or light documentation. This makes your product essentially free but users pay for support and/or the docs. I can't remember any specific example of a project selling the docs but I'm sure someone will.
I’m reminded of log4j and JasperReports.
(More so for the former; I found very little free documentation. The free documentation for JasperReports was a bit better, but buying the manual was still a good idea.)
and that is why school districts require friending of specific people (HR/Legal) on Facebook. If they're posting anything inappropriate then it should show up where that individual can see/read/vet the posts.
Ah, because Facebook does not allow you to post anything to specific groups of friends, rather than to any and all friends at once.
Dwolla? The ones whose Terms of Service include such gems as "the parties to this [contract, lease, etc.]" (did someone take a template and forget to replace something?) and the following?
(a) “Account” means a holding account at Veridian Credit Union. Partners” means natural persons or (b) “Dwolla entities that Dwolla does business with in order to bring the Dwolla System to the marketplace. (c) “Dwolla System” means the software owned by Dwolla. “Dwolla User”, “You”, or “Your” means a natural (d) person or entity using the Dwolla System via an account at a Financial Institution. Iowa state (e) “Veridian Credit Union” is an chartered, NCUSIF federally insured credit union headquartered in Waterloo, Iowa.
I mean, come on. "Natural persons or"... what? And what's the unmatched quotation mark?
All this does *not* scream "professional" at me. I mean, if they can't even have someone proofread their Terms of Service, how can I have confidence that they do their *other* jobs competently?
Users cannot sit on Firefox 4.x They will be updated to the latest version when they open the About dialog (or sooner) because all* but the current Firefox release are unsupported versions in the new rapid release cycle. Those not current versions do not not get critical security updates except via the current version. Firefox users will not be spread across Firefox 4, 5, 6, etc. They will be on the latest version or they will be about to be on the latest version.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
We need something like OpenId to become more widespread.
Specifically, we need more OpenID consumers.
It seems to have become rather fashionable to be an OpenID provider these days (i.e. you can use an URL of theirs as an identity), but that's not worth much unless you can use such an identity to log in somewhere.
As long as the number of OpenID consumers (i.e. sites that will let you log in with an OpenID) are so low, it won't really take off.
Ideally, the big providers would also become consumers, so you could log into Yahoo Mail with your Google OpenID, or into your Google search account with your LiveJournal OpenID, or.... Then you would only need one ID.
Slashdot Mirror
(Or is this only about supporting issues which directly affect their own employees?)
That's the impression I got from news coverage.
So you’re saying that Reiser is to Linux as Gates is to Microsoft?
What are some examples of "typically Democrat" and "typically Republican" phrases?
I skimmed the links but didn't find anything there.
Whereas on /. the cabal's policy is NO UTF-8 FOR YOU, which apparently you forgot about...
Or didn't know about in the first place.
What century are we in again?
And dibs on how long it'll be before we see a parallel structure to the "editor cabal" problem they already have.
I'll say.
"We can’t do it like that because of policy X?" -- "Where does it say that? Who decided that?" -- "It doesn’t say that anywhere, and we the cabal decided that policy. It’s not open to discussion; this is not a majority-vote thing."
And dibs on how long it'll be before we see a parallel structure to the "editor cabal" problem they already have.
Iâ(TM)ll say.
âoeWe canâ(TM)t do it like that because of policy X?â â" âoeWhere does it say that? Who decided that?â â" âoeIt doesnâ(TM)t say that anywhere, and we the cabal decided that policy. Itâ(TM)s not open to discussion; this is not a majority-vote thing.â
Don't they speak Persian in Iran, though?
They do, but Persian has a ton of Arabic loanwords. Sort of like how knowing French (or Spanish or Italian) will let you understand many words in English. (Or for some kinds of vocabulary, knowing Greek, especially in medicine and philosophy.)
Al-Haqq is #51 on this list on Wikipedia (though there it’s translated “The Truth, The Reality”), so that could well be it. See also this article.
At first I thought that “Oh Just One” referred to the fact that there can be only one search engine (as in “there can be just one”), but I’m fairly sure it means “O Just One” in the sense of a person who is just, based on my limited Arabic.
1) Fully open source with lack or light documentation. This makes your product essentially free but users pay for support and/or the docs. I can't remember any specific example of a project selling the docs but I'm sure someone will.
I’m reminded of log4j and JasperReports.
(More so for the former; I found very little free documentation. The free documentation for JasperReports was a bit better, but buying the manual was still a good idea.)
and that is why school districts require friending of specific people (HR/Legal) on Facebook. If they're posting anything inappropriate then it should show up where that individual can see/read/vet the posts.
Ah, because Facebook does not allow you to post anything to specific groups of friends, rather than to any and all friends at once.
How clever of the school people!
Dwolla? The ones whose Terms of Service include such gems as "the parties to this [contract, lease, etc.]" (did someone take a template and forget to replace something?) and the following?
I mean, come on. "Natural persons or"... what? And what's the unmatched quotation mark?
All this does *not* scream "professional" at me. I mean, if they can't even have someone proofread their Terms of Service, how can I have confidence that they do their *other* jobs competently?
So if I have version "??" and it turns out it has a feature I don't like or a bug in it, then I can downgrade to version "??" to fix it?
No, because downgrading is not supported.
As Asa Dotzler said in a comment on that Bugzilla entry:
Apparently, both Le Putty and Kitty include ZModem capability. (They're both based on the PuTTY source code.)
I haven't used either of them, though, so I can't vouch for how well it works.
It seems to me that "follow the water" is better than seeking randomly -- if you find no water, then there can't be any life (as we know it) anyway.
Sure, if you find water, it's not a guarantee that there *is* life -- but it seems like a good way to weed out "definitely no" prospects.
I'm always amused that the annoying Yahoo toolbar ad in the installer claims to "block annoying ads".
FWIW, the Braille caption of the picture says "m]ale torso in a cold cement". (The "m" is not in the picture frame and I'm inferring it.)
Then try
perl -e '$foo = [[3]]'
Pretty much the same thing.
['arrays', ['inside', 'other'], 'arrays', ['are', 'possible', ['in', 'Perl'], 'too']];
YouTube with feedback turned off sounds like an excellent idea to me.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Whats to prevent them from using a live Linux CD to browse the web as they please?
The inability to boot from CD, protected by a BIOS password that stops you from changing boot order?
We need something like OpenId to become more widespread.
Specifically, we need more OpenID consumers.
It seems to have become rather fashionable to be an OpenID provider these days (i.e. you can use an URL of theirs as an identity), but that's not worth much unless you can use such an identity to log in somewhere.
As long as the number of OpenID consumers (i.e. sites that will let you log in with an OpenID) are so low, it won't really take off.
Ideally, the big providers would also become consumers, so you could log into Yahoo Mail with your Google OpenID, or into your Google search account with your LiveJournal OpenID, or .... Then you would only need one ID.
I may have to go and buy surplus paper voting machines and make a killing.
Why is this always about "machines"? What's wrong with good old pencils and paper and counting the votes in public, by people?
Oh please. Like he even reads his messages himself rather than having a secretary to filter out messages such as yours before they reach his eyes.
Imagine if your phone company charged you to receive a call on your cell phone!
Wait... in the US, they do. How quaint (from the viewpoint of most Europeans).
They should charge for calling a cell phone; receiving a call on one should be free.