Not only is this a dupe (with its own misleading headline), but the headline here is also misleading. AOL and Yahoo! have offered filter circumvention for years. They're just changing the model by which it's done.
There's room for plenty of interesting discussion about Goodmail, but somehow the headlines and summaries keep getting the details wrong...
~all does not mean "accept any other IP", it means "if you see another IP, it's not automatically bogus, but be suspicious anyway". ?all means "accept any other IP".
I, personally, tack on +2 in SpamAssassin for softfail (~all) and +4 for fail (-all), but I leave it alone for neutral (?all).
Yes, and the article itself says that the risk is if the company is VIOLATING the GPL. The submitter read only the IT Observer headline before submitting this, or didn't understand the article.
And ignoring the troll content that is this article, there's one suggestion that makes sense regardless of any predicted impending doom:
He suggests we should be writing a practical guidebook printed on long lasting paper containing "the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity."
This is a good idea. We can't predict a pretty significant percentage of the natural disasters that could seriously fuck up civilization globally, so it may be wise to get started on this now. In the worst-case (human extinction), it could also prove useful to anyone who stumbles upon our remains in the future.
King Crimson founder, guitar master, and all around eccentric musical genius
Soon the average user won't even bother reading the headline, much less the article or the Slashdot story, and the comment system will quickly fall into disuse. On the bright side, we'll get to witness the ultimate triumph of laziness as it conquers every possible source of discussion. Bonus: no more mods to bitch about!
Back whoever refuses business big buck campaigns, freedom of rights, the rights of expression and the rights of consumers (equal, not to the point of piracy).
Your suggestion assumes that every election actually features a candidate matching that description...
Reminds me of something I heard tonight on 60 Minutes about Bill Proxmire. Evidently he had a policy of never accepting a campaign contribution. Further, he was said to have never spent more than $200 on a campaign, and most of that was said to have been spent on the stamps used to return campaign contributions. I'm couching it in such careful terms because I haven't verified any of that report myself, but that caution itself sort of points to the problem today -- I have a hard time believing such a thing is even possible.
Imagine, a time when senators thought they were in Washington do do the will of the people. We've managed to evolve a political system where people who don't accept campaign contributions don't have the slighest chance of making it to Washington. Unless, of course, they're already independently wealthy, but I think history has shown us that those people tend not to be entirely in touch with the average person.
Half-assed populism still wins, and will continue to do so until a viable alternative can be created.
Instead of letting the market figure out what forms of DRM will be used, the government decides that it's items A, B, and C that need to be addressed.
Yes, and I'm sure it's the government that came up with this idea, not those same companies in the "market". Surely they'd never use their money and its attendant influence to convince politicians that piracy is a threat second only to al Qaeda itself.
Sure, the government deserves a fair percentage of the blame here for listening too much to contributors and lobbyists, but that's been going on since at least Standard Oil. If the MPAA and/or RIAA weren't the ones who pushed for this, I'll eat my hat. Or my shorts, or something. Point being: this isn't as simple as the government trying to circumvent the free market; the market itself is trying to do so.
Except that nowhere did it state that we wouldn't be sending crew. All it says is that the scientific programs have been cancelled and that they're going to focus on reliably transporting crew to orbit before they try to conduct research. Evidently the ISS is now a multi-billion dollar campsite in space. Maybe we can get a sponsorshop from KOA.
We can't have it both ways (saving money/focusing resources by not conducting research while still expending resources keeping it running), and we shouldn't try. Either fund the fucking thing, hand it over to the Europeans and Japanese and let them worry about it, or deorbit it and be done with it. Or, as they say in some circles: shit or get off the pot.
Yeah, and that's the overpriced ThinkGeek one. I've seen them cheaper than that $10, and even free at trade shows.
I think that most professional geeks need to come to grips with reality. If you're in IT, you probably think you're more important than you really are, while management probably thinks you're less important than you really are. This, obviously, adds up to a huge disparity, and causes plenty of conflict when these two distorted realities butt heads.
I'm sure some will look at this and say "no, really, I'm that important", but really, you're not. First, think about how many other people have exactly as much value as you do to the business. Unless you're in a very, very small shop, there's more than one person doing critical IT things in the first place. Then consider the people who produce whatever it is that your business does. It's popular in geek circles to complain that those people don't understand that they wouldn't be able to do their jobs without us geeks. Well, here's a news flash: you wouldn't have that job to do without them.
Next, try to remove that built-in Dilbert filter you've developed, and take a critical look at your immediate management. Now, your manager may be just as utterly useless as the stereotypes one would normally apply, but more often than not, that's an unfair stereotype. I know for certain that without my team lead or our group's manager, who both know how to work within the corporate political system to get things done, I would have been either downsized because upper management had no idea whether I was of any use, or I would have been fired for pissing off enough people.
You should also consider what those other departments really do (outside of the automatic reaction you probably have to that question, which is almost certainly along the lines of "annoy me" or "piss me off"). Sure, without the network guys, lots of things wouldn't get done; what wouldn't get done without this other department? "Service Department" is sufficiently generic that I have no idea what they do, but contrary to the common jokes about it, businesses aren't usually in the habit of hiring people to do nothing. Or take the Sales department, which is one of the bigger targets of IT vitriol. The individuals may often deserve it, or they may not (I've known some incredibly slimy sales guys in my life), but either way: the business needs customers. Without the IT guys, the sales guys would lack email, IM, and possibly even the productivity tools they use daily, but without the sales guys, nobody would be paying the IT guys' salaries.
For reference, I've only ever worked in one place where the IT staff got offices instead of cubicles, and that's mainly because there weren't any cubicles anywhere in our small office space. Not to mention the fact that it was about a 25-person ISP, and our customer base was primarily in a few counties. Oh, and they've since been gobbled up by a much larger competitor, had their employees laid off, and moved operations to another state.
I think, ultimately, that the submitter (and the GP) need a reality check. Despite what years in IT have led you to believe, you're not the most important preson in the organization and you're never going to be viewed as such. Millions of people get their jobs done just fine within cubicles. And for the GP: if you have a server in your cube or office, you're just asking for it anyway.
So build it into the damn MUA. I bet your grandma doesn't know a lick of HTML or CSS, much less how to create reasonable, well-formed, and standards-compliant documents using those technologies. Regardless, I'm sure she manages just fine when she wants to change the font color or drag & drop a photo into an email, and she probably couldn't care less how the text and image data is encoded. I doubt she'd notice if the MUA turned it into a cpio archive, compressed it, base64ed it, and injected it into a UUCP gateway, as long as the recipient could actually read it.
Not that it's shocking, but it is especially funny because the summary manages to contradict the headline's hyperbole.
A few key phrases: "consignment" and "selling for others". This is not an attempt to require all eBay sellers to become licensed, as the title implies. It is an attempt to require people who sell things on eBay on behalf of others to become licensed. Your grandma in Fargo would still be able to sell her Precious Memories figurines on eBay without a license.
Not R-ing TFA is one thing, but seriously, at least RTFS.
I've seen it happen under perfectly unremarkable circumstances (read: heavy, but not outrageous, load). Of course, as soon as a case was opened with RedHat, they said, "oh, yeah, that one, you should upgrade to this kernel build rev." I don't know, however, that the bug itself wasn't due to a RH-specific kernel modification. The fix certainly seemed to be vendor-specific. Nonetheless...
Yeah. I did the same thing, and, in fact, barely qualified to graduate; however, I didn't touch pot for the first time until well after high school, and I only touched booze once before graduating (and that was during a summer break). Anecdotes are nice but prove little.
With that said, someone without a particular interest in smoking pot who doesn't do so probably isn't missing out on much. I doubt it's any big loss if the guy's turned off to the stuff.
You're suggesting that socializing with other Slashdotters is somehow superior to staying home and ordering a pizza? Have you *met* other Slashdotters?:)
Either way, the OP may be on to something. At that point, you'll definitely have the energy to programatically define every single grammatical rule in the English language. Assuming, of course, that your ticker holds out that long...
Yeah, I remember a few years ago when EverQuest killed the game industry because of the monthly cost and time investment. As a result, there have been no innovative games since and the industry is dying.
Kind of like talking about "America" when you're actually referring to either North America or the USA.
Very few people in the US use "America" to refer to North America. We do quite often use "America" to refer to the United States of America, but I don't see how that's any more strange than shortening Bundesrepublik Deutschland to just Deustschland. The whole thing together is a mouthful, so we commonly take the part of it that's actually a proper name and leave off all the modifying components like "United States" and "Federal Republic".
It just happens that the continent America is on also has that name. That's rarely confusing here, though, because we're raised considering it two continents. It's an arbitrary division, but anyone not familiar with the notion of a Europe, Asia, and Africa being separate may be confused as well. Europe and Africa may be separated by an obvious body of water, but the one separating Africa and Asia is artificial, and there's nothing but mountains separating the bulk of Europe and Asia, IIRC. So yes, borders are very arbitrary.
(I don't care that this is off-topic; this whole stinkin' article is flamebait. May as well do something useful with it.)
So did anyone read TFA all the way through before deciding that this was either a) law enforcement being clueless or b) law enforcement maliciously attacking alternate browers? It's just a light piece about how the tech forensics guys have to adapt. Nobody is claiming that Firefox and Opera are only used by criminals, for the sole purpose of hiding criminal activity. It just points out is that they have to learn some new things in order to deal with it. That is what's known as a "fact". After reading the entire thing, I didn't see a single value judgment about that fact. I didn't even see a quote from some clueless schmuck making a value judgment about that fact.
High tech or low tech, only two kinds of people gamble: idiots or cheaters.
No, those are the only people who gamble and expect to win. When I gamble (which is rarely), I do so in the company of friends and with a set amount of money that I completely expect to never see again. In that respect, it's no different than going to see a movie or a concert or even going out to a bar. It's a social activity which costs money. It just happens that sometimes it may cost less money than you planned.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for ruining it, asshole.
Not only is this a dupe (with its own misleading headline), but the headline here is also misleading. AOL and Yahoo! have offered filter circumvention for years. They're just changing the model by which it's done.
There's room for plenty of interesting discussion about Goodmail, but somehow the headlines and summaries keep getting the details wrong...
~all does not mean "accept any other IP", it means "if you see another IP, it's not automatically bogus, but be suspicious anyway". ?all means "accept any other IP".
I, personally, tack on +2 in SpamAssassin for softfail (~all) and +4 for fail (-all), but I leave it alone for neutral (?all).
I dare you to point me at the RFC that says abuse@ must be read, and prohibits autoresponding to inform legitimate senders of the proper procedure.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Bill Gates defends Google doing evil by claiming that they're really doing good. Now nobody knows who to flame and who to praise.
Yes, and the article itself says that the risk is if the company is VIOLATING the GPL. The submitter read only the IT Observer headline before submitting this, or didn't understand the article.
A Pund company name... awesome.
*waits for it*
This is a good idea. We can't predict a pretty significant percentage of the natural disasters that could seriously fuck up civilization globally, so it may be wise to get started on this now. In the worst-case (human extinction), it could also prove useful to anyone who stumbles upon our remains in the future.
I'd probably volunteer for a few pages, myself.
"Analysts make shit up, news outlets inexplicably pay attention."
Film at 11.
Soon the average user won't even bother reading the headline, much less the article or the Slashdot story, and the comment system will quickly fall into disuse. On the bright side, we'll get to witness the ultimate triumph of laziness as it conquers every possible source of discussion. Bonus: no more mods to bitch about!
Your suggestion assumes that every election actually features a candidate matching that description...
Reminds me of something I heard tonight on 60 Minutes about Bill Proxmire. Evidently he had a policy of never accepting a campaign contribution. Further, he was said to have never spent more than $200 on a campaign, and most of that was said to have been spent on the stamps used to return campaign contributions. I'm couching it in such careful terms because I haven't verified any of that report myself, but that caution itself sort of points to the problem today -- I have a hard time believing such a thing is even possible.
Imagine, a time when senators thought they were in Washington do do the will of the people. We've managed to evolve a political system where people who don't accept campaign contributions don't have the slighest chance of making it to Washington. Unless, of course, they're already independently wealthy, but I think history has shown us that those people tend not to be entirely in touch with the average person.
Half-assed populism still wins, and will continue to do so until a viable alternative can be created.
Yes, and I'm sure it's the government that came up with this idea, not those same companies in the "market". Surely they'd never use their money and its attendant influence to convince politicians that piracy is a threat second only to al Qaeda itself.
Sure, the government deserves a fair percentage of the blame here for listening too much to contributors and lobbyists, but that's been going on since at least Standard Oil. If the MPAA and/or RIAA weren't the ones who pushed for this, I'll eat my hat. Or my shorts, or something. Point being: this isn't as simple as the government trying to circumvent the free market; the market itself is trying to do so.
Or the earliest birds had dinosaurs that were like feet.
Except that nowhere did it state that we wouldn't be sending crew. All it says is that the scientific programs have been cancelled and that they're going to focus on reliably transporting crew to orbit before they try to conduct research. Evidently the ISS is now a multi-billion dollar campsite in space. Maybe we can get a sponsorshop from KOA.
We can't have it both ways (saving money/focusing resources by not conducting research while still expending resources keeping it running), and we shouldn't try. Either fund the fucking thing, hand it over to the Europeans and Japanese and let them worry about it, or deorbit it and be done with it. Or, as they say in some circles: shit or get off the pot.
Yeah, and that's the overpriced ThinkGeek one. I've seen them cheaper than that $10, and even free at trade shows.
I think that most professional geeks need to come to grips with reality. If you're in IT, you probably think you're more important than you really are, while management probably thinks you're less important than you really are. This, obviously, adds up to a huge disparity, and causes plenty of conflict when these two distorted realities butt heads.
I'm sure some will look at this and say "no, really, I'm that important", but really, you're not. First, think about how many other people have exactly as much value as you do to the business. Unless you're in a very, very small shop, there's more than one person doing critical IT things in the first place. Then consider the people who produce whatever it is that your business does. It's popular in geek circles to complain that those people don't understand that they wouldn't be able to do their jobs without us geeks. Well, here's a news flash: you wouldn't have that job to do without them.
Next, try to remove that built-in Dilbert filter you've developed, and take a critical look at your immediate management. Now, your manager may be just as utterly useless as the stereotypes one would normally apply, but more often than not, that's an unfair stereotype. I know for certain that without my team lead or our group's manager, who both know how to work within the corporate political system to get things done, I would have been either downsized because upper management had no idea whether I was of any use, or I would have been fired for pissing off enough people.
You should also consider what those other departments really do (outside of the automatic reaction you probably have to that question, which is almost certainly along the lines of "annoy me" or "piss me off"). Sure, without the network guys, lots of things wouldn't get done; what wouldn't get done without this other department? "Service Department" is sufficiently generic that I have no idea what they do, but contrary to the common jokes about it, businesses aren't usually in the habit of hiring people to do nothing. Or take the Sales department, which is one of the bigger targets of IT vitriol. The individuals may often deserve it, or they may not (I've known some incredibly slimy sales guys in my life), but either way: the business needs customers. Without the IT guys, the sales guys would lack email, IM, and possibly even the productivity tools they use daily, but without the sales guys, nobody would be paying the IT guys' salaries.
For reference, I've only ever worked in one place where the IT staff got offices instead of cubicles, and that's mainly because there weren't any cubicles anywhere in our small office space. Not to mention the fact that it was about a 25-person ISP, and our customer base was primarily in a few counties. Oh, and they've since been gobbled up by a much larger competitor, had their employees laid off, and moved operations to another state.
I think, ultimately, that the submitter (and the GP) need a reality check. Despite what years in IT have led you to believe, you're not the most important preson in the organization and you're never going to be viewed as such. Millions of people get their jobs done just fine within cubicles. And for the GP: if you have a server in your cube or office, you're just asking for it anyway.
So build it into the damn MUA. I bet your grandma doesn't know a lick of HTML or CSS, much less how to create reasonable, well-formed, and standards-compliant documents using those technologies. Regardless, I'm sure she manages just fine when she wants to change the font color or drag & drop a photo into an email, and she probably couldn't care less how the text and image data is encoded. I doubt she'd notice if the MUA turned it into a cpio archive, compressed it, base64ed it, and injected it into a UUCP gateway, as long as the recipient could actually read it.
Not that it's shocking, but it is especially funny because the summary manages to contradict the headline's hyperbole.
A few key phrases: "consignment" and "selling for others". This is not an attempt to require all eBay sellers to become licensed, as the title implies. It is an attempt to require people who sell things on eBay on behalf of others to become licensed. Your grandma in Fargo would still be able to sell her Precious Memories figurines on eBay without a license.
Not R-ing TFA is one thing, but seriously, at least RTFS.
I've seen it happen under perfectly unremarkable circumstances (read: heavy, but not outrageous, load). Of course, as soon as a case was opened with RedHat, they said, "oh, yeah, that one, you should upgrade to this kernel build rev." I don't know, however, that the bug itself wasn't due to a RH-specific kernel modification. The fix certainly seemed to be vendor-specific. Nonetheless...
Yeah. I did the same thing, and, in fact, barely qualified to graduate; however, I didn't touch pot for the first time until well after high school, and I only touched booze once before graduating (and that was during a summer break). Anecdotes are nice but prove little.
With that said, someone without a particular interest in smoking pot who doesn't do so probably isn't missing out on much. I doubt it's any big loss if the guy's turned off to the stuff.
You're suggesting that socializing with other Slashdotters is somehow superior to staying home and ordering a pizza? Have you *met* other Slashdotters? :)
He said 5 gallons of caffeine, not 5 gallons of caffeine-containing products.
With 37.5mg of caffeine per 12oz. Pepsi and 1.2g of caffeine per milliliter, I figure that to be just under 606 cans of Pepsi, vs. just over 227 2-ounce shots of espresso.
Either way, the OP may be on to something. At that point, you'll definitely have the energy to programatically define every single grammatical rule in the English language. Assuming, of course, that your ticker holds out that long...
Yeah, I remember a few years ago when EverQuest killed the game industry because of the monthly cost and time investment. As a result, there have been no innovative games since and the industry is dying.
Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?
Very few people in the US use "America" to refer to North America. We do quite often use "America" to refer to the United States of America, but I don't see how that's any more strange than shortening Bundesrepublik Deutschland to just Deustschland. The whole thing together is a mouthful, so we commonly take the part of it that's actually a proper name and leave off all the modifying components like "United States" and "Federal Republic".
It just happens that the continent America is on also has that name. That's rarely confusing here, though, because we're raised considering it two continents. It's an arbitrary division, but anyone not familiar with the notion of a Europe, Asia, and Africa being separate may be confused as well. Europe and Africa may be separated by an obvious body of water, but the one separating Africa and Asia is artificial, and there's nothing but mountains separating the bulk of Europe and Asia, IIRC. So yes, borders are very arbitrary.
(I don't care that this is off-topic; this whole stinkin' article is flamebait. May as well do something useful with it.)
So did anyone read TFA all the way through before deciding that this was either a) law enforcement being clueless or b) law enforcement maliciously attacking alternate browers? It's just a light piece about how the tech forensics guys have to adapt. Nobody is claiming that Firefox and Opera are only used by criminals, for the sole purpose of hiding criminal activity. It just points out is that they have to learn some new things in order to deal with it. That is what's known as a "fact". After reading the entire thing, I didn't see a single value judgment about that fact. I didn't even see a quote from some clueless schmuck making a value judgment about that fact.
Good god. Get a grip, folks (submitter included).
No, those are the only people who gamble and expect to win. When I gamble (which is rarely), I do so in the company of friends and with a set amount of money that I completely expect to never see again. In that respect, it's no different than going to see a movie or a concert or even going out to a bar. It's a social activity which costs money. It just happens that sometimes it may cost less money than you planned.