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 ( ) 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 ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) 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 (x) Jurisdictional problems ( ) 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 (x) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) 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 ( ) Sending email should be free (x) 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!
Shouldn't there also have been a lot of mass murder in the Netherlands, Tokyo, Singapore, and NYC, which are more population dense and cover smaller areas?
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 ( ) 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 ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) 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 ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (x) 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 (x) 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 ( ) 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!
Wow, you are either poor at seeing conceptual similarities, or have a very rigid definition of what counts as "close to telepathy". I'd say that if, to an observer, it's identical to telepathy, then that's pretty damn close to telepathy!
Real telepathy: Without visibly communicating, Alice transmits information to Bob's mind.
This device + inner-ear receiver: Without visibly communicating, Alice transmits information to Bob's mind.
The technology is "sufficiently advanced" for reasons I'm sure you're familiar with [1].
[1] or if you're not, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- some sci-fi writer
What's important for people is not so much an anonymous person's numerical rating, but his description of what happened, which can then be further substantiated, and if possible, lead to an investigation.
Example (and this is true):
Traffic Stop 1: I see the lights. I pull to the side. Megaphone tells me to go to a driveway. I roll down window.
Cop: Step out of the vehicle. [I get out] Cop: The reason I pulled you over is for speeding. Are you in an emergency? Me: No. [gets insurance and license from me] Cop: What's all this on your back window? It's a mess! You can't see out of that! Why are you driving with it like that? Me: Well, that just formed because of the weather. Cop: Have you been smoking marjuana in this area recently? Me: [stunned, both at the sudden pot accusation and why he cares about "in this area"]...? Cop: [repeats] Me: Uh... no. (?) Cop: I'm just asking because you're acting real funny right now. Me: Yes, I'm just kind of introverted. Cop: And that's supposed to explain your bloodshot eyes!??? Me: I've been at a computer all day. Cop: Wait here. [writes ticket for forever] Cop: What's your phone number? Me: [Not sure if it's a home number he wants, or if I'll have to be called in a few days, since I'm traveling] Um, like the number for where I'll be for the next few days? Cop: I need a number WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED. Me: Well, you can always get me on my cell... Cop: No, [moron,] not a CELL PHONE! Me: [gives home number] Cop: Now, sign right there. Me: What does my signature here mean? Cop: You've got to SIGN RIGHT THERE! Me: What am I agreeing to by signing this? Cop: [dumbfounded for a few seconds] By signing this, you are saying you received this ticket. Me: [signs] Cop: [Takes forever again, I take the chance to wipe condesation off back window, then dismisses me.]
Traffic Stop 2:
While approaching an interstate, I see a police car parked under the overpass. An overloaded pickup turns infront of me and drives through. As I pass the officer, his lights go on and he gets behind me. I turn into an apartment complex, as does the pickup, which turns to the left thereafter, and I turn to the right and take a parking spot. The police car comes to me and parks. I roll down my window and turn off the engine. The officer approaches.
Cop: Good evening sir. The reason I pulled you over is for doing 40 in a 30 mph zone. Are you in an emergency? Me: No. Cop: May I see your license and insurance. Me: Yes, I'll get it out of the glove compartment. Cop: Is this on your license your current address? Me: Yes. Cop: [Leaves for a while and then comes back] Cop: Please sign right here. It is not an admission of guilt, just that you will show up in court on the specified day. Me: [signs] Cops: Here's your ticket, please drive safely.
***
These descriptions are more useful than the actual numerical value, since they tell exactly what the officer did that was objectionable. I would describe the first as being a complete dick, and the second as professional, even though the legal outcome was the same.
I know nobody reads my posts anymore because I've shot my karma to hell, but, just for my own pleasure:
1) All real religions will gladly tell you what they're about before hand. 2) No real religion will brainwash you into mortgaging your house. 3) No real religion protects their materials by copyright, so they can do #2, and use the law to squelch leaks and critics. 4) No real religion will make you disconnect from your friends and family, so you will have nobody to instill some sense into you--and stop you from doing #2. 5) All real religions on this planet are inclusive, instead of exclusive.
I know this sounds like a nitpicking exercise, but I can imagine a religion being legitimate while failing all of these. Here's what I have in mind:
It is an ascetic sect, basically, live a minimalist existence far from populated areas, and say, does a lot of meditation. It has secret teachings that it doesn't print anywhere or put on any website, and only reveals to you after you've passed a certain level, claiming that to do otherwise would violate the path to enlightenment, or something like that. They do not charge any money to get to that level, you just have to prove understanding of previous teachings, do a lot of meditation, and pass some tests that pose a small, but real, physical risk (say, walking on coals, long-term fasting, "pinching" out candlelights, that kind of thing).
Since there are no printed materials, they don't sue over copyright; however, the founder sustains his minimalist existence (and that of new converts) from royalties on his autobiography, and the publisher (who owns the copyright) does sue p2p distributors of the book. To gain rank, you have to give up most of your worldly possessions and disconnect from the "materialistic world". (They get none of it.)
So, let's review:
1) All real religions will gladly tell you what they're about before hand. -- No, they still keep secret teachings, though you have to infer what you can from reading the autobiography.
2) No real religion will brainwash you into mortgaging your house. -- They might get you to do this in order to make enough time to complete the trials and meditation, but again, don't get any money from it.
3) No real religion protects their materials by copyright, so they can do #2, and use the law to squelch leaks and critics. -- Again, no printed materials, but you're "strongly encouraged" to read the autobiography, which can only legally be had for money (the founder ceded the rights to the publisher and can't afford to buy the rights back); by deriving revenues from its copyright, they're participants in anything the publisher does in defense of the book: sue people who claim it's a lie (thus hurting sales), copy it without permission, etc. The secrecy of the teachings are protected by simply not confirming or denying anything anyone says about the religion, thus making any ex-convert who leaks unable to substantiate his claims.
4) No real religion will make you disconnect from your friends and family, so you will have nobody to instill some sense into you--and stop you from doing #2. -- Again, in practice, living an ascetic life will mean this.
5) All real religions on this planet are inclusive, instead of exclusive. -- Don't know what this means. They'll take anyone, but have the rigid rank system, and you must pass tests to move up. They profit from none of them, of course.
While this may seem like a pointless mental exercise, the point is, I think you have to take a sort of "weighted sum" of a number of traits in order to define a cult, rather than have simpe either/or tests.
Everybody can check the source.... But because most users/people generally are not qualified to do so,
Why do people keep saying this? It equates "I can't verify" with "no one can verify". As long as there's the possibility of someone verifying, people who can't personally verify have much better reason to trust it.
There's a parallel here (because there aren't enough flamewars in this discussion...) to creationists who say that "Because you can't personally verify the science, you're accepting evolution on faith."
Additionally, isn't there some information-theoretic argument (perhaps having to do with zero-knowledge proofs?) that an arbitrary-low probability of being caught is equivalent to a zero probability of being caught?
Perhaps you haven't heard of cosmology and WIMPs vs MACHOs? Seriously, though, people who tend to quickly polarize over Global Warming tend to do so because of the seemingly obvious ramifications of admitting whether Global Warming exists.
Actually, I think the problem is that the ramifications are not so obvious, anywhere beyond "we must do something". Here's what I mean:
Take the most adamant well-informed activist who believes: the globe is warming, humans are causing primarily via CO2 emissions, and this will lead to bad things.
Then, have him explain the problem (just the problem, not any proposed solutions) to a mainstream economist. Then, ask the economist what would be the most efficient solution would be that solves the problem. (And yes, economists are the most qualified to propose this, GIVEN a global utility curve and a well-supported scientific climatological model.)
If the activist favors implementing that solution, and only that solution, you would be right. In reality, that activist will want to do a bunch of things in addition to that solution, which all amount to micromanaging people's lives and otherwise pursuing social goals well beyond the implications of climate change.
This is why I don't take such activists seriously: "global warming" is simply the latest rationalization for implementing a range of social policies that they can't otherwise convince people to endorse.
That's actually a good point. Men do have a counterpart to horoscopes.
astrology ads : women:: get-rich-quick schemes : men
Magazines targeted at men will have the "omg u can get totally rich in the stock market, just buy this $80 course" ads.
"Should women date men who have speculated in stocks?" (Correct answer: "Yes, if he's a hedge fund manager and is betting with someone elses's money.")
No, no, no. These claims about oil being underpriced are bullshit.
-Military intervention is not a true cost of providing oil. (Even spun agreed with this.) It should not be counted as a subsidy if consumers don't pay a cost that shouldn't exist.
-While pollution is a valid negative externality that is unpriced, it's magnitude (after substracting positive externalities like my brother not dying because of plastics) is almost certainly less than the taxes that already exist on oil, meaning consumers ALREADY feel that cost.
-The economically correct solution to such underpricing is to tag on a tax that captures the damage, *and then is applied to fixing the damage*. We should not be thinking in terms of "miles per gallon". The correct miles per gallon on a car is whatever the market produces once it sees the environmental cost in the price.
Trying to control the problem by "sneaking in" efficiency improvements are fundamentally flawed because they don't change incentives, meaning everyone free to up their usage (or otherwise have inefficient behavior) with respect to the infinite number of things you didn't think to regulate.
If you're against someone driving a Hummer, even when they pay to cancel all verifiable environmental costs, you are objecting on social grounds, not environmental ones.
Thank you so much for saying this. I'm very sad that I burned through my karma by attacking a few too many sacred cows, but happy that there are people like you (and, fortunately, others) to refute these common misconceptions in my stead.
People fail to compare apples to apples, for the reasons you've given. While *information* can be reproduced ad infinitum, the right that people are asserting cannot. Only one person can have *exclusive* rights to form any given pattern. It's a very valid point to argue that no one should have such a right (like you say), but the property claimed is, undeniably, scarce.
I am quite frankly sick of all the misconceptions and crappy arguments thrown around about IP. I really should step up my efforts to stamp them out. I'll list a few of them here:
-"intellectual property is a deceptive term/ blurs distinctions between copyright and trademark, etc" --> Um, yeah, because it's a superset term that people find useful in many contexts. For example, "signficant other" can be said to "blur" the difference between a wife and a girlfriend, but if superset terms really confuse you, you were confused to begin with.
-"It's not property" --> See the zillion analogues that people automatically notice when they're intelligent and honest.
-"IP has no legal meaning" --> but it does in common parlance.
-"It's possible to produce intellectual works for profit without asserting IP rights" --> and you can use those methods even while IP exists; we would, however, lose all those that require IP in order for anyone to bother producing them.
Wow, he used his *special* privileges to edit someone's Wikipedia article? Oh noes! Now maybe I'll use *my* special privileges to send around unauthorized copies of Linux!!!!
Hi, I'm the self-important liberal who think he's saving the earth by driving a slightly-more fuel-efficient car to his giant home in suburbia.
Hi, I'm the energy company that just bought more oil because the self-important liberals thought they were doing the planet a favor by using less.
Hi, I'm the non-cookie-cutter human who lives in a small apartment, but uses incandescent bulbs and drives a small, non-hybrid car. TERRORIST!
Hi, I'm the Slashdot poster who points out that a simple carbon tax with the proceeds applied to carbon sinking on a competitive bid process would properly align incentives and contain all the externalities of carbon, and that unless these incentives are fundamentally changed, attempts to buy a hybrid car to drive to your mansion or fill it with CFLs are really nothing more than signaling how much you care while not actually accomplish anything. TERRORIST!
(Hey, might as well, since I can't revive this accounts karma, even after I've offered to give in to my mod-stalkers' demands...)
Agree with you completely, being able to control my computer with my mind would eliminate many impediments and significantly increase my efficiency. I'd leap at the first opportunity to buy something like this, and I hope to get this thing, even at its posted price.
One disadvantage, though: onslaught of dorks who think they're funny by saying, "You must realize the truth: there is no mouse, and it's your mind that's moving."
Yes, this is what I had suggested before: "nuclear-powered octane". Run a nuclear plant to get the energy to make octane, using the CO2 in the atmosphere. And yep, a federal lab is a few steps ahead of all of us on this one. Like you said, zero net carbon emissions, becuase you're just returning to the atmosphere what you took from it, no need to change the infrastructure, you can make it arbitrarily safe (since the nuclear plant can be located far from populated areas), and you can avoid buying oil from questionable regimes.
WAIT! Quick, environmentalists, rationalize how it's not good enough!
That actually wasn't me, although I would echo 1) except of course, to say, "near-brick" as in, "no one in the Ubuntu forums knows what to do at that point even given the install disc and the error message and specs".
I also smirked at 2) and 5), given Ubuntu's consistent ability to not just screw up, but to screw up whatever precaution you used against possibility of that particular screwup. Trying to confine Ubuntu to a secondary hard drive as a hedge against install failure? Sorry, sucker! It's HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you put our flaky bootloader on your MAIN hard drive. bwahahahaha!
And then (see sig)... you think you're tired of Ubuntu? Just going to delete your Ubuntu partition and forget the whole experience? Not so fast, sucker! Your boot sector is now scrambled! Try getting data off it now!
No, the AC wasn't me. But his sentiments match mine exactly.
Right. Can we all chip in on a bus rental, so we can all go over and slap this jerk? Probably not going to work out. I just talked to the bus company, and the rep told me that vehicles carrying geek activists must stay on the shoulder when driving (as per the road provider's rules), effectively limiting our average speed to 5 mph. So, it would take a few days for us to get to him.
HOWEVER, I have some good news: if we also pitch in to pay for an affiliate deal with the road company, we may be able use the regular lanes! Thoughts?
Done and done.(Posting A/C because 2-post/day karma restriction.)
Btw, Google maps seems to have the location within acceptable range now, but the site you suggested still had it in the same bad spot, and they know have the right location -- they just need to verify and act on it.:-) Also mentioned wrong-city thing.
Every mapping system, from Google maps, to in-car GPS navigators, gets my apartment complex wrong. It shows up as being about a mile down the road from where it really is, and in a different city. So also, entering my zip code and/or address will list me as being within a different municipal boundary from where I really am.
Oh, my god. Sometimes/.ers get whipped into such a fury over those that they hate, that they will significantly relax their standards of rigor. Remember the time/.ers called it "fascist suppression of the freedom of speech" whem a guy *helped professors spread their message* (by making a website that lists professors who give ultra-left-wing lectures)? And now, look at this post I'm replying to, and how it got taken seriously by a lawyer!
Now that I've gotten my karma up past negative, I can actually speak my mind when I want to. So, in order of my reactions:
1) Um, right, dude, because "promising not to sell something" is the same as "murder for hire." 2) Murder is illegal, so a contract requiring murder is unenforceable. "Not selling" something is legal, so the barrier to the hired hit that applied in that case, does not apply here. 3) There are contracts ALL THE TIME where people sign away the right to sell a possession. They are routinely enforced. It's called a rental. Heard of it? I'm in one right now, for my apartment, slave that I am. 4) Yes, I'm pretty sure you can be sued for knowingly helping facilitate a contract violation, or theft, however it would be classified here.
Okay, before too many of you start to remind me what a theory is, let me see if I can clarify something.
You and the first respondent are showing exactly why that angle ("isn't evolution pretty much just a theory at this point, not a fact") is such an effective troll, even though is been around for ages:
1) Theories are not somehow the opposite of fact. 2) Making it to the stage of "theory" is actually significant and requires a lot of evidence. 3) "Theory" is used differently in science than in common speech. 4) Untangling 1-3 takes much more effort than the troll itself because of the separate issues involved. 5) People believe they are smart for being able to untangle 1-3, so more than one person will so respond. 6) Not everyone will be able to untangle it properly, leading to a disagreement between at least two people who are accustomed to being correct, sparking a sub-flamewar. 7) People equivocate regarding the terms "theory of evolution" and "theory of gravity" leading to clever remarks like the one you just made, leading to 6) again. 8) It's easy for the original troll to "misunderstand" someone's attempt at 4) and spark further responses.
In fact, just about a month ago, an AC, who may or may not have been me, made a short post with this angle and got ~200 reponses *on Slashdot* ultimately stemming from his post.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) 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
( ) 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
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) 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
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) 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
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) 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
( ) Sending email should be free
(x) 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!
Shouldn't there also have been a lot of mass murder in the Netherlands, Tokyo, Singapore, and NYC, which are more population dense and cover smaller areas?
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) 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
( ) 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
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) 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
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) 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
(x) 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
( ) 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!
That chain of events never actually happened, according to the best scientific evidence.
*please mod informative, because I damn well need it right now*
Wow, you are either poor at seeing conceptual similarities, or have a very rigid definition of what counts as "close to telepathy". I'd say that if, to an observer, it's identical to telepathy, then that's pretty damn close to telepathy!
Real telepathy: Without visibly communicating, Alice transmits information to Bob's mind.
This device + inner-ear receiver: Without visibly communicating, Alice transmits information to Bob's mind.
The technology is "sufficiently advanced" for reasons I'm sure you're familiar with [1].
[1] or if you're not, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- some sci-fi writer
What's important for people is not so much an anonymous person's numerical rating, but his description of what happened, which can then be further substantiated, and if possible, lead to an investigation.
...?
Example (and this is true):
Traffic Stop 1: I see the lights. I pull to the side. Megaphone tells me to go to a driveway. I roll down window.
Cop: Step out of the vehicle. [I get out]
Cop: The reason I pulled you over is for speeding. Are you in an emergency?
Me: No.
[gets insurance and license from me]
Cop: What's all this on your back window? It's a mess! You can't see out of that! Why are you driving with it like that?
Me: Well, that just formed because of the weather.
Cop: Have you been smoking marjuana in this area recently?
Me: [stunned, both at the sudden pot accusation and why he cares about "in this area"]
Cop: [repeats]
Me: Uh... no. (?)
Cop: I'm just asking because you're acting real funny right now.
Me: Yes, I'm just kind of introverted.
Cop: And that's supposed to explain your bloodshot eyes!???
Me: I've been at a computer all day.
Cop: Wait here.
[writes ticket for forever]
Cop: What's your phone number?
Me: [Not sure if it's a home number he wants, or if I'll have to be called in a few days, since I'm traveling] Um, like the number for where I'll be for the next few days?
Cop: I need a number WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED.
Me: Well, you can always get me on my cell...
Cop: No, [moron,] not a CELL PHONE!
Me: [gives home number]
Cop: Now, sign right there.
Me: What does my signature here mean?
Cop: You've got to SIGN RIGHT THERE!
Me: What am I agreeing to by signing this?
Cop: [dumbfounded for a few seconds] By signing this, you are saying you received this ticket.
Me: [signs]
Cop: [Takes forever again, I take the chance to wipe condesation off back window, then dismisses me.]
Traffic Stop 2:
While approaching an interstate, I see a police car parked under the overpass. An overloaded pickup turns infront of me and drives through. As I pass the officer, his lights go on and he gets behind me. I turn into an apartment complex, as does the pickup, which turns to the left thereafter, and I turn to the right and take a parking spot. The police car comes to me and parks. I roll down my window and turn off the engine. The officer approaches.
Cop: Good evening sir. The reason I pulled you over is for doing 40 in a 30 mph zone. Are you in an emergency?
Me: No.
Cop: May I see your license and insurance.
Me: Yes, I'll get it out of the glove compartment.
Cop: Is this on your license your current address?
Me: Yes.
Cop: [Leaves for a while and then comes back]
Cop: Please sign right here. It is not an admission of guilt, just that you will show up in court on the specified day.
Me: [signs]
Cops: Here's your ticket, please drive safely.
***
These descriptions are more useful than the actual numerical value, since they tell exactly what the officer did that was objectionable. I would describe the first as being a complete dick, and the second as professional, even though the legal outcome was the same.
I know nobody reads my posts anymore because I've shot my karma to hell, but, just for my own pleasure:
1) All real religions will gladly tell you what they're about before hand. 2) No real religion will brainwash you into mortgaging your house. 3) No real religion protects their materials by copyright, so they can do #2, and use the law to squelch leaks and critics. 4) No real religion will make you disconnect from your friends and family, so you will have nobody to instill some sense into you--and stop you from doing #2. 5) All real religions on this planet are inclusive, instead of exclusive.
I know this sounds like a nitpicking exercise, but I can imagine a religion being legitimate while failing all of these. Here's what I have in mind:
It is an ascetic sect, basically, live a minimalist existence far from populated areas, and say, does a lot of meditation. It has secret teachings that it doesn't print anywhere or put on any website, and only reveals to you after you've passed a certain level, claiming that to do otherwise would violate the path to enlightenment, or something like that. They do not charge any money to get to that level, you just have to prove understanding of previous teachings, do a lot of meditation, and pass some tests that pose a small, but real, physical risk (say, walking on coals, long-term fasting, "pinching" out candlelights, that kind of thing).
Since there are no printed materials, they don't sue over copyright; however, the founder sustains his minimalist existence (and that of new converts) from royalties on his autobiography, and the publisher (who owns the copyright) does sue p2p distributors of the book. To gain rank, you have to give up most of your worldly possessions and disconnect from the "materialistic world". (They get none of it.)
So, let's review:
1) All real religions will gladly tell you what they're about before hand. -- No, they still keep secret teachings, though you have to infer what you can from reading the autobiography.
2) No real religion will brainwash you into mortgaging your house. -- They might get you to do this in order to make enough time to complete the trials and meditation, but again, don't get any money from it.
3) No real religion protects their materials by copyright, so they can do #2, and use the law to squelch leaks and critics. -- Again, no printed materials, but you're "strongly encouraged" to read the autobiography, which can only legally be had for money (the founder ceded the rights to the publisher and can't afford to buy the rights back); by deriving revenues from its copyright, they're participants in anything the publisher does in defense of the book: sue people who claim it's a lie (thus hurting sales), copy it without permission, etc. The secrecy of the teachings are protected by simply not confirming or denying anything anyone says about the religion, thus making any ex-convert who leaks unable to substantiate his claims.
4) No real religion will make you disconnect from your friends and family, so you will have nobody to instill some sense into you--and stop you from doing #2. -- Again, in practice, living an ascetic life will mean this.
5) All real religions on this planet are inclusive, instead of exclusive. -- Don't know what this means. They'll take anyone, but have the rigid rank system, and you must pass tests to move up. They profit from none of them, of course.
While this may seem like a pointless mental exercise, the point is, I think you have to take a sort of "weighted sum" of a number of traits in order to define a cult, rather than have simpe either/or tests.
Everybody can check the source. ... But because most users/people generally are not qualified to do so,
Why do people keep saying this? It equates "I can't verify" with "no one can verify". As long as there's the possibility of someone verifying, people who can't personally verify have much better reason to trust it.
There's a parallel here (because there aren't enough flamewars in this discussion...) to creationists who say that "Because you can't personally verify the science, you're accepting evolution on faith."
Additionally, isn't there some information-theoretic argument (perhaps having to do with zero-knowledge proofs?) that an arbitrary-low probability of being caught is equivalent to a zero probability of being caught?
Perhaps you haven't heard of cosmology and WIMPs vs MACHOs? Seriously, though, people who tend to quickly polarize over Global Warming tend to do so because of the seemingly obvious ramifications of admitting whether Global Warming exists.
Actually, I think the problem is that the ramifications are not so obvious, anywhere beyond "we must do something". Here's what I mean:
Take the most adamant well-informed activist who believes: the globe is warming, humans are causing primarily via CO2 emissions, and this will lead to bad things.
Then, have him explain the problem (just the problem, not any proposed solutions) to a mainstream economist. Then, ask the economist what would be the most efficient solution would be that solves the problem. (And yes, economists are the most qualified to propose this, GIVEN a global utility curve and a well-supported scientific climatological model.)
If the activist favors implementing that solution, and only that solution, you would be right. In reality, that activist will want to do a bunch of things in addition to that solution, which all amount to micromanaging people's lives and otherwise pursuing social goals well beyond the implications of climate change.
This is why I don't take such activists seriously: "global warming" is simply the latest rationalization for implementing a range of social policies that they can't otherwise convince people to endorse.
That's actually a good point. Men do have a counterpart to horoscopes.
:: get-rich-quick schemes : men
astrology ads : women
Magazines targeted at men will have the "omg u can get totally rich in the stock market, just buy this $80 course" ads.
"Should women date men who have speculated in stocks?" (Correct answer: "Yes, if he's a hedge fund manager and is betting with someone elses's money.")
No, no, no. These claims about oil being underpriced are bullshit.
-Military intervention is not a true cost of providing oil. (Even spun agreed with this.) It should not be counted as a subsidy if consumers don't pay a cost that shouldn't exist.
-While pollution is a valid negative externality that is unpriced, it's magnitude (after substracting positive externalities like my brother not dying because of plastics) is almost certainly less than the taxes that already exist on oil, meaning consumers ALREADY feel that cost.
-The economically correct solution to such underpricing is to tag on a tax that captures the damage, *and then is applied to fixing the damage*. We should not be thinking in terms of "miles per gallon". The correct miles per gallon on a car is whatever the market produces once it sees the environmental cost in the price.
Trying to control the problem by "sneaking in" efficiency improvements are fundamentally flawed because they don't change incentives, meaning everyone free to up their usage (or otherwise have inefficient behavior) with respect to the infinite number of things you didn't think to regulate.
If you're against someone driving a Hummer, even when they pay to cancel all verifiable environmental costs, you are objecting on social grounds, not environmental ones.
Thank you so much for saying this. I'm very sad that I burned through my karma by attacking a few too many sacred cows, but happy that there are people like you (and, fortunately, others) to refute these common misconceptions in my stead.
People fail to compare apples to apples, for the reasons you've given. While *information* can be reproduced ad infinitum, the right that people are asserting cannot. Only one person can have *exclusive* rights to form any given pattern. It's a very valid point to argue that no one should have such a right (like you say), but the property claimed is, undeniably, scarce.
I am quite frankly sick of all the misconceptions and crappy arguments thrown around about IP. I really should step up my efforts to stamp them out. I'll list a few of them here:
-"intellectual property is a deceptive term/ blurs distinctions between copyright and trademark, etc" --> Um, yeah, because it's a superset term that people find useful in many contexts. For example, "signficant other" can be said to "blur" the difference between a wife and a girlfriend, but if superset terms really confuse you, you were confused to begin with.
-"It's not property" --> See the zillion analogues that people automatically notice when they're intelligent and honest.
-"IP has no legal meaning" --> but it does in common parlance.
-"It's possible to produce intellectual works for profit without asserting IP rights" --> and you can use those methods even while IP exists; we would, however, lose all those that require IP in order for anyone to bother producing them.
Anyone else want to try their hand?
Wow, he used his *special* privileges to edit someone's Wikipedia article? Oh noes! Now maybe I'll use *my* special privileges to send around unauthorized copies of Linux!!!!
So Galileo was like a 17th-century version of me then?
Hi, I'm the self-important liberal who think he's saving the earth by driving a slightly-more fuel-efficient car to his giant home in suburbia.
Hi, I'm the energy company that just bought more oil because the self-important liberals thought they were doing the planet a favor by using less.
Hi, I'm the non-cookie-cutter human who lives in a small apartment, but uses incandescent bulbs and drives a small, non-hybrid car. TERRORIST!
Hi, I'm the Slashdot poster who points out that a simple carbon tax with the proceeds applied to carbon sinking on a competitive bid process would properly align incentives and contain all the externalities of carbon, and that unless these incentives are fundamentally changed, attempts to buy a hybrid car to drive to your mansion or fill it with CFLs are really nothing more than signaling how much you care while not actually accomplish anything. TERRORIST!
(Hey, might as well, since I can't revive this accounts karma, even after I've offered to give in to my mod-stalkers' demands...)
Agree with you completely, being able to control my computer with my mind would eliminate many impediments and significantly increase my efficiency. I'd leap at the first opportunity to buy something like this, and I hope to get this thing, even at its posted price.
One disadvantage, though: onslaught of dorks who think they're funny by saying, "You must realize the truth: there is no mouse, and it's your mind that's moving."
So, remind me then, the Japanese counter word for robots would be -jin (people) now? Or still -dai (mechanized objects)?
Yes, this is what I had suggested before: "nuclear-powered octane". Run a nuclear plant to get the energy to make octane, using the CO2 in the atmosphere. And yep, a federal lab is a few steps ahead of all of us on this one. Like you said, zero net carbon emissions, becuase you're just returning to the atmosphere what you took from it, no need to change the infrastructure, you can make it arbitrarily safe (since the nuclear plant can be located far from populated areas), and you can avoid buying oil from questionable regimes.
WAIT! Quick, environmentalists, rationalize how it's not good enough!
That actually wasn't me, although I would echo 1) except of course, to say, "near-brick" as in, "no one in the Ubuntu forums knows what to do at that point even given the install disc and the error message and specs".
... you think you're tired of Ubuntu? Just going to delete your Ubuntu partition and forget the whole experience? Not so fast, sucker! Your boot sector is now scrambled! Try getting data off it now!
I also smirked at 2) and 5), given Ubuntu's consistent ability to not just screw up, but to screw up whatever precaution you used against possibility of that particular screwup. Trying to confine Ubuntu to a secondary hard drive as a hedge against install failure? Sorry, sucker! It's HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you put our flaky bootloader on your MAIN hard drive. bwahahahaha!
And then (see sig)
No, the AC wasn't me. But his sentiments match mine exactly.
HOWEVER, I have some good news: if we also pitch in to pay for an affiliate deal with the road company, we may be able use the regular lanes! Thoughts?
Done and done.(Posting A/C because 2-post/day karma restriction.)
:-) Also mentioned wrong-city thing.
Btw, Google maps seems to have the location within acceptable range now, but the site you suggested still had it in the same bad spot, and they know have the right location -- they just need to verify and act on it.
Every mapping system, from Google maps, to in-car GPS navigators, gets my apartment complex wrong. It shows up as being about a mile down the road from where it really is, and in a different city. So also, entering my zip code and/or address will list me as being within a different municipal boundary from where I really am.
What gives?
That's not the Discovery Channel -- those are inferences of real, legitimate paleontologists.
And that's what scares me.
Oh, my god. Sometimes /.ers get whipped into such a fury over those that they hate, that they will significantly relax their standards of rigor. Remember the time /.ers called it "fascist suppression of the freedom of speech" whem a guy *helped professors spread their message* (by making a website that lists professors who give ultra-left-wing lectures)? And now, look at this post I'm replying to, and how it got taken seriously by a lawyer!
Now that I've gotten my karma up past negative, I can actually speak my mind when I want to. So, in order of my reactions:
1) Um, right, dude, because "promising not to sell something" is the same as "murder for hire."
2) Murder is illegal, so a contract requiring murder is unenforceable. "Not selling" something is legal, so the barrier to the hired hit that applied in that case, does not apply here.
3) There are contracts ALL THE TIME where people sign away the right to sell a possession. They are routinely enforced. It's called a rental. Heard of it? I'm in one right now, for my apartment, slave that I am.
4) Yes, I'm pretty sure you can be sued for knowingly helping facilitate a contract violation, or theft, however it would be classified here.
Okay, before too many of you start to remind me what a theory is, let me see if I can clarify something.
You and the first respondent are showing exactly why that angle ("isn't evolution pretty much just a theory at this point, not a fact") is such an effective troll, even though is been around for ages:
1) Theories are not somehow the opposite of fact.
2) Making it to the stage of "theory" is actually significant and requires a lot of evidence.
3) "Theory" is used differently in science than in common speech.
4) Untangling 1-3 takes much more effort than the troll itself because of the separate issues involved.
5) People believe they are smart for being able to untangle 1-3, so more than one person will so respond.
6) Not everyone will be able to untangle it properly, leading to a disagreement between at least two people who are accustomed to being correct, sparking a sub-flamewar.
7) People equivocate regarding the terms "theory of evolution" and "theory of gravity" leading to clever remarks like the one you just made, leading to 6) again.
8) It's easy for the original troll to "misunderstand" someone's attempt at 4) and spark further responses.
In fact, just about a month ago, an AC, who may or may not have been me, made a short post with this angle and got ~200 reponses *on Slashdot* ultimately stemming from his post.
Don't get sucked into it!