Report them to themselves for ratting out rats. When they add that to their database, they'll be guilty of ratting themselves out for ratting out rats, which means they need to add another entry to their database...
What a waste of money. Tabloid TV, that's all it is. I used to look up to the BBC as a last bastion of worth-a-shit television in the face of garbage like ITV News. I can't be sure whether it's changed all that much or if I was just wrong in the first place, but I'm 100% sure that it's terrible now.
For the last few weeks, on both national and local news, the BBC has droned on and on about some little girl that went missing in Portugal. This is despite the fact that absolutely nothing newsworthy has happened there since the actual event itself. "Her parents are sad", "the police are looking for the girl", "somebody saw a girl" - all headline news according to the BBC, doubly so if you live in the north west. And has anyone seen the way they talk about the Labour Party lately? Personally, I think they fucking suck, but I'm not so insecure that I need the newsreader to reinforce my faith in this opinion. If that was the kind of news I wanted, I'd be watching FOX News.
It's like this all the time. Panorama is just the centre-piece. Every show has to have some kind of angle or agenda. Obviously, reporting their findings neutrally and objectively would be considered "boring" by too many people, so it's sensationalist garbage all round.
When I even bother with the TV these days, the only two sources of news I can bear are Euronews and France24, precisely because they just tell me what they know and then stop.
I just had a good laugh at the expense of the people signed up for this. Either they don't care that their addresses are going to get harvested, or they're working under the delusion that obfuscation techniques like "jim at website dot com" can't be beaten by some very simple Perl.
While we're at it, let's throw out all these crappy operating systems. Times have changed, and we need a redesign from scratch to accommodate our changed needs.
Oh, and email sucks. We need a blank canvas for that as well. Let's start it over with all the protections we need.
And the web. What a mess. Let's take that down for a few days and replace it with something that enforces standards compliance a little better.
Of course, all of these changes would be almost trivial. Most of the multi-billion dollar corporations using the internet for infrastructure, public relations, and as a source of revenue, won't mind going back to 1993 while we tinker with the entire world's network configuration. It's a good thing we can count on their cooperation, as well, because if they kicked up a fuss, you can be damn sure that ICANN will listen to them before it'll listen to us!
I don't want any of that shit. I have a mail client. It's great. I don't need a bittorrent client, and I have a perfectly good text editor for taking notes. I don't care if it's faster with all that extra stuff. I don't care if you call it an "internet app suite" and pretend that changes anything.
All I want is a replacement for my increasingly RAM-intensive browser. It's not good enough to fulfill that requirement, and then also be a bunch of other unwanted things. That's why there's a full-stop at the end of the sentence. You can check if you like: it comes right after the letter 'r'. This is my point. There's a lot of us who are getting sick of Firefox. No, we're not interested in your internet app suite. No, seriously. No, please, stop calling this number. NO! We're considering jumping ship because of a few measly features like a spell-checker. What makes you people think we would want an entire "suite" of these things instead?
It's an annoying trend that I want to see die. The p2p app's connected to the IRC client. The IRC client's connected to the IM client. The IM client's connected to the browser. The browser's connected to the mail reader. The mail reader's connected to the POP client.
Yes, all of those applications should interoperate cleanly. No, they shouldn't achieve this by running from the same fucking binary and having access to each other's innermost variables and secrets.
We're talking about feature bloat here, and how it's a bad thing in Firefox. Opera has a fucking mail client built in. If that's not feature bloat, then I don't know what is.
Anybody know of a phone like this? I've practically stopped bothering with the things recently. So much feature bloat... it was actually hurting performance. I had a Siemens my201x that actually lagged noticeably behind button presses because of how bloated it was.
I have a Nokia 7110 on its way to me right now. It has a bit of superfluous crap, like a browser, but as far as I can tell its mostly phone. Anybody know of anything better?
If you start getting all lah dee dah about it, you're defeating the object: to overclock your brain and get stuck into something. The only reason I even bother boiling the damn water is that I don't trust the coffee beans to be safe to consume otherwise.
Shit, I screwed up the formatting. I fucking fail it. Ah well, time to go overdose on crack to end the pain caused by messing up the formatting in some text on a website.
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) 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
( ) 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
( ) 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
(x) 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
(x) 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!
bash-3.2$ dd if=/dev/random bs=1 count=50 | strings -n 1 | tr -d "[:cntrl:]" | sed "s/(.{8}).*/\1/" sed: -e expression #1, char 14: invalid reference \1 on `s' command's RHS 50+0 records in 50+0 records out 50 bytes (50 B) copied, 0.00041852 s, 119 kB/s bash-3.2$ what the fuck is this? I wanted a password, you piece of shit machine
Just because he says broadcast would be more efficient, doesn't mean that he thinks we should go back to television. Believe it or not, Van Jacobson isn't a 20th century throwback shill for Big Media, or a bloody idiot.
Posted by Cliff on 03/05/07 18:28 from the punishing-them-for-the-mistakes-of-others dept. [ Education ] [ Ask Slashdot ]
yamamushi asks:
"Within the past few weeks, students across Boerne ISD were being called into offices to discuss the use of lockpicks to circumvent the school's cabinet locks. The problem is that some of these students are being suspended from school for up to 3 months at a time. Shouldn't the school district be liable for their own insecurity? Why are they punishing so many students for something that should be handled from the district's end? I know at the time I was going to school there, I was punished for using a copied key to get into cabinets without permission, even after I told the janitor to change the locks. They refused to update any of the cabinets and as such I was using the same tactic till the day I graduated." While security breaches by students are something to take seriously, should school administrations continue with their knee-jerk mentality to something like this, especially at the times when its obvious that no malicious intent was involved?
Quote of parent post complaining about barely functional early releases
Incoherent effing and blinding that does not address the issue raised by the parent. Not a trace of the obvious retort that regardless of business model, programmers program and marketers ignore their warnings and bundle unfinished software in a release for the sake of another selling point.
Quote of parent post decrying poor documentation
For the billionth time in recorded internet history, an open source programmer tells a user to write their own goddamn documentation if they want it so fucking bad and why do they need documentation anyway it's not like they've ever contributed anything and nobody ever donates you know I've only gotten $5 from that goddamn paypal link nobody loves me everybody hates me going in the garden with my worms.
Poster logs out and starts typing out a blog post investigating why nobody uses his software, concluding with a scathing critique of the world for being too stupid to understand him or his masterful works.
The people familiar in details with all the shock sites are a certain subculture, and certainly doesn't make up the history of the Internet.
As I understand it, back in the early days of the internet, the kind of enthusiasts who make up today's subculture were a significant proportion of the userbase. Just by being there, they were a target market, and helped the whole thing to grow. Just because AOL came along and reduced them to a subculture doesn't mean they aren't part of the internet's history.
And besides, who cares about the internet's ability to concentrate even more wealth into even fewer hands? I can guarantee that in 300 years, the history teachers won't be telling their classes about how the internet was really profitable and made a select few very rich. They'll tell of how it connected the world and got us all communicating at an unprecedented level (assuming they even mention it at all).
Sure, the signal-to-noise ratio sucks, and half the time all we're communicating is a picture of a guy stretching his ass with his hands, but at least that's more interesting than some dotcom's record quarterly report.
It's not just the AI that's not progressing. Behaviour in general is lagging behing hardware capabilities. For example, the newest Splinter Cell game. Consoles by now should be able to at least simulate an enemy's field of vision accurately. Apparently not. The NPCs in Splinter Cell have a very boolean field of vision, and you can be in plain view looking right at them, in good light, and they don't see you. And then if you trigger an alert, suddenly everybody's vision improves.
Crackdown is another example: The enemies seem to "see" and track you from hundreds of feet below despite the fact that you are sprinting around rooftops, outside their line of sight.
Other studies have pointed to white guilt, neighbourhood paedophiles and industrialised society as possible causes for this and many other aspects of the ongoing apocalypse. Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Contrary to current trends, the only site out of all of those in which I participate regularly is Slashdot. I don't even have accounts on any of the other forums. Some I only really visit because it's an old habit, notably the two webcomics and eltiempo.com. And yes, Digg is firmly in the 'entertainment' column, for its AWESOME PICTURES! and INCREDIBLY ADDICTIVE NEW FLASH GAMES OH EM GEE!
Slashdot Mirror
Report them to themselves for ratting out rats. When they add that to their database, they'll be guilty of ratting themselves out for ratting out rats, which means they need to add another entry to their database...
Just don't tell them I sent you.
What a waste of money. Tabloid TV, that's all it is. I used to look up to the BBC as a last bastion of worth-a-shit television in the face of garbage like ITV News. I can't be sure whether it's changed all that much or if I was just wrong in the first place, but I'm 100% sure that it's terrible now.
For the last few weeks, on both national and local news, the BBC has droned on and on about some little girl that went missing in Portugal. This is despite the fact that absolutely nothing newsworthy has happened there since the actual event itself. "Her parents are sad", "the police are looking for the girl", "somebody saw a girl" - all headline news according to the BBC, doubly so if you live in the north west. And has anyone seen the way they talk about the Labour Party lately? Personally, I think they fucking suck, but I'm not so insecure that I need the newsreader to reinforce my faith in this opinion. If that was the kind of news I wanted, I'd be watching FOX News.
It's like this all the time. Panorama is just the centre-piece. Every show has to have some kind of angle or agenda. Obviously, reporting their findings neutrally and objectively would be considered "boring" by too many people, so it's sensationalist garbage all round.
When I even bother with the TV these days, the only two sources of news I can bear are Euronews and France24, precisely because they just tell me what they know and then stop.
I just had a good laugh at the expense of the people signed up for this. Either they don't care that their addresses are going to get harvested, or they're working under the delusion that obfuscation techniques like "jim at website dot com" can't be beaten by some very simple Perl.
While we're at it, let's throw out all these crappy operating systems. Times have changed, and we need a redesign from scratch to accommodate our changed needs.
Oh, and email sucks. We need a blank canvas for that as well. Let's start it over with all the protections we need.
And the web. What a mess. Let's take that down for a few days and replace it with something that enforces standards compliance a little better.
Of course, all of these changes would be almost trivial. Most of the multi-billion dollar corporations using the internet for infrastructure, public relations, and as a source of revenue, won't mind going back to 1993 while we tinker with the entire world's network configuration. It's a good thing we can count on their cooperation, as well, because if they kicked up a fuss, you can be damn sure that ICANN will listen to them before it'll listen to us!
I don't want any of that shit. I have a mail client. It's great. I don't need a bittorrent client, and I have a perfectly good text editor for taking notes. I don't care if it's faster with all that extra stuff. I don't care if you call it an "internet app suite" and pretend that changes anything.
All I want is a replacement for my increasingly RAM-intensive browser. It's not good enough to fulfill that requirement, and then also be a bunch of other unwanted things. That's why there's a full-stop at the end of the sentence. You can check if you like: it comes right after the letter 'r'. This is my point. There's a lot of us who are getting sick of Firefox. No, we're not interested in your internet app suite. No, seriously. No, please, stop calling this number. NO! We're considering jumping ship because of a few measly features like a spell-checker. What makes you people think we would want an entire "suite" of these things instead?
It's an annoying trend that I want to see die. The p2p app's connected to the IRC client. The IRC client's connected to the IM client. The IM client's connected to the browser. The browser's connected to the mail reader. The mail reader's connected to the POP client.
Yes, all of those applications should interoperate cleanly. No, they shouldn't achieve this by running from the same fucking binary and having access to each other's innermost variables and secrets.
We're talking about feature bloat here, and how it's a bad thing in Firefox. Opera has a fucking mail client built in. If that's not feature bloat, then I don't know what is.
Anybody know of a phone like this? I've practically stopped bothering with the things recently. So much feature bloat... it was actually hurting performance. I had a Siemens my201x that actually lagged noticeably behind button presses because of how bloated it was.
I have a Nokia 7110 on its way to me right now. It has a bit of superfluous crap, like a browser, but as far as I can tell its mostly phone. Anybody know of anything better?
If you start getting all lah dee dah about it, you're defeating the object: to overclock your brain and get stuck into something. The only reason I even bother boiling the damn water is that I don't trust the coffee beans to be safe to consume otherwise.
Shit, I screwed up the formatting. I fucking fail it. Ah well, time to go overdose on crack to end the pain caused by messing up the formatting in some text on a website.
Your post advocates a (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 (x) 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 (x) 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!
They really ought to be using more than two characters, to avoid ambiguity. Like this:
OLOLOLOLLOLOL ^^^^^^^^
Just because he says broadcast would be more efficient, doesn't mean that he thinks we should go back to television. Believe it or not, Van Jacobson isn't a 20th century throwback shill for Big Media, or a bloody idiot.
Posted by Cliff on 03/05/07 18:28
from the punishing-them-for-the-mistakes-of-others dept.
[ Education ] [ Ask Slashdot ]
yamamushi asks:
What the fuck is this Internet2 thing anyway? Some kind of big truck?
Hell yeah! What's wrong with people today? Doesn't he realise that this is SERIOUS BUSINESS?
Don't forget the neckbeard.
As I understand it, back in the early days of the internet, the kind of enthusiasts who make up today's subculture were a significant proportion of the userbase. Just by being there, they were a target market, and helped the whole thing to grow. Just because AOL came along and reduced them to a subculture doesn't mean they aren't part of the internet's history.
And besides, who cares about the internet's ability to concentrate even more wealth into even fewer hands? I can guarantee that in 300 years, the history teachers won't be telling their classes about how the internet was really profitable and made a select few very rich. They'll tell of how it connected the world and got us all communicating at an unprecedented level (assuming they even mention it at all).
Sure, the signal-to-noise ratio sucks, and half the time all we're communicating is a picture of a guy stretching his ass with his hands, but at least that's more interesting than some dotcom's record quarterly report.
Awww, it's awright, I bwoughted your butt-medicine for you! Here, you take a liddel sip and then you go sleepy-byes!
It's not just the AI that's not progressing. Behaviour in general is lagging behing hardware capabilities. For example, the newest Splinter Cell game. Consoles by now should be able to at least simulate an enemy's field of vision accurately. Apparently not. The NPCs in Splinter Cell have a very boolean field of vision, and you can be in plain view looking right at them, in good light, and they don't see you. And then if you trigger an alert, suddenly everybody's vision improves.
Crackdown is another example: The enemies seem to "see" and track you from hundreds of feet below despite the fact that you are sprinting around rooftops, outside their line of sight.
Both games look spectacular, I might add.
No it's not. Holy shit. Can't we even talk about security holes any more without it being FUD?
Other studies have pointed to white guilt, neighbourhood paedophiles and industrialised society as possible causes for this and many other aspects of the ongoing apocalypse. Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Informed
Entertained
Contrary to current trends, the only site out of all of those in which I participate regularly is Slashdot. I don't even have accounts on any of the other forums. Some I only really visit because it's an old habit, notably the two webcomics and eltiempo.com. And yes, Digg is firmly in the 'entertainment' column, for its AWESOME PICTURES! and INCREDIBLY ADDICTIVE NEW FLASH GAMES OH EM GEE!