CreatemotionsT seeks beta testers for a strong Q&A session

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Roberto Della Pasqua, Jan 6, 2005.

  1. CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
    Based
    on innovative ideas and sporting an intuitive GUI, it is suited for both
    home and business applications.

    The author Roberto Della Pasqua says: "Createmotions is the result of four
    years of full time development and academic research by a team comprised of
    international talent, with the ultimate goal of bringing evolutionary
    messaging software methods to the business market, the home use and the
    third sector".

    CreatemotionsTM is inviting companies, IT groups, academic researchers,
    senior coders, low level TCP/IP hackers and pretty much anyone who is
    interested to be a part of the beta test. As a reward, one licence for the
    final product will be given to all participants.

    If interested please check www.createmotions.com.

    Thank you :)

    Roberto
     
    Roberto Della Pasqua, Jan 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
    > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.

    [etc.]
    Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
    anti-spamming address munging?
     
    Martin Ambuhl, Jan 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roberto Della Pasqua

    infobahn Guest

    Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    >
    > Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
    > > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.

    > [etc.]
    > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
    > anti-spamming address munging?


    Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
    bullet-proof vests.
     
    infobahn, Jan 6, 2005
    #3
  4. infobahn <> scribbled the following:
    > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    >> Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
    >> > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.

    >> [etc.]
    >> Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
    >> anti-spamming address munging?


    > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
    > bullet-proof vests.


    I guess hypocrisy is not one of those reasons.

    --
    /-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
    \-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
    "When a man talks dirty to a woman, that's sexual harassment. When a woman talks
    dirty to a man, that's 14.99 per minute + local telephone charges!"
    - Ruben Stiller
     
    Joona I Palaste, Jan 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Roberto Della Pasqua

    infobahn Guest

    Joona I Palaste wrote:
    >
    > infobahn <> scribbled the following:
    > > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    > >> Why do spammers use anti-spamming address munging?

    >
    > > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
    > > bullet-proof vests.

    >
    > I guess hypocrisy is not one of those reasons.


    No, it isn't. Spammers don't do this because they're hypocritical.
    They're hypocritical because they do this.
     
    infobahn, Jan 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Roberto Della Pasqua

    Richard Bos Guest

    infobahn <> wrote:

    > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    > >
    > > Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
    > > > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.

    > > [etc.]
    > > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
    > > anti-spamming address munging?

    >
    > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
    > bullet-proof vests.


    Nah. All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
    are not in the LAPD.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Jan 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Roberto Della Pasqua

    infobahn Guest

    Richard Bos wrote:
    >
    > infobahn <> wrote:
    >
    > > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
    > > > > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
    > > > [etc.]
    > > > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
    > > > anti-spamming address munging?

    > >
    > > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
    > > bullet-proof vests.

    >
    > Nah.


    You appear to disagree...

    > All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
    > are not in the LAPD.


    ....but your disagreement appears to span not from logic but from a
    moral position. I can hardly believe that anyone would need this to
    be clarified, but it appears that you do, so I'll clarify. I was
    *not* equating spammers with police officers. I was merely showing
    that defending yourself against attack is neither incompatible with
    being an attacker, nor necessarily hypocritical.

    Morally, you're on safer ground. Spamming is of course abhorrent
    to all sensible people.
     
    infobahn, Jan 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Roberto Della Pasqua

    Richard Bos Guest

    infobahn <> wrote:

    > Richard Bos wrote:
    > >
    > > infobahn <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
    > > > > anti-spamming address munging?
    > > >
    > > > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
    > > > bullet-proof vests.

    > >
    > > Nah.

    >
    > You appear to disagree...
    >
    > > All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
    > > are not in the LAPD.

    >
    > ...but your disagreement appears to span not from logic but from a
    > moral position. I can hardly believe that anyone would need this to
    > be clarified, but it appears that you do, so I'll clarify. I was
    > *not* equating spammers with police officers. I was merely showing
    > that defending yourself against attack is neither incompatible with
    > being an attacker, nor necessarily hypocritical.


    The police (usually) protect themselves from other people's, often
    criminals', attacks. Spammers protect themselves from their own crimes.
    The latter _is_ hypocritical, the former is not.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Jan 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Roberto Della Pasqua

    infobahn Guest

    Richard Bos wrote:
    >
    > infobahn <> wrote:
    >
    > > Richard Bos wrote:
    > > >
    > > > infobahn <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
    > > > > > anti-spamming address munging?
    > > > >
    > > > > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
    > > > > bullet-proof vests.
    > > >
    > > > Nah.

    > >
    > > You appear to disagree...
    > >
    > > > All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
    > > > are not in the LAPD.

    > >
    > > ...but your disagreement appears to span not from logic but from a
    > > moral position. I can hardly believe that anyone would need this to
    > > be clarified, but it appears that you do, so I'll clarify. I was
    > > *not* equating spammers with police officers. I was merely showing
    > > that defending yourself against attack is neither incompatible with
    > > being an attacker, nor necessarily hypocritical.

    >
    > The police (usually) protect themselves from other people's, often
    > criminals', attacks. Spammers protect themselves from their own crimes.
    > The latter _is_ hypocritical, the former is not.


    No. Spammers use email munging to protect themselves from other
    people's (i.e. other spammers') crimes, not from their own. I
    can't believe that even a spammer would be stupid enough to spam
    his own address(es). (All right, maybe I /can/ believe that, but
    I doubt whether it is true for most of them.) So the analogy,
    imperfect though it may be, is still reasonable.
     
    infobahn, Jan 14, 2005
    #9
  10. infobahn <> scribbled the following:
    > Richard Bos wrote:
    >> The police (usually) protect themselves from other people's, often
    >> criminals', attacks. Spammers protect themselves from their own crimes.
    >> The latter _is_ hypocritical, the former is not.


    > No. Spammers use email munging to protect themselves from other
    > people's (i.e. other spammers') crimes, not from their own. I
    > can't believe that even a spammer would be stupid enough to spam
    > his own address(es). (All right, maybe I /can/ believe that, but
    > I doubt whether it is true for most of them.) So the analogy,
    > imperfect though it may be, is still reasonable.


    Police don't attack other police, even if the other police belong to a
    different department, or an altogether different police force. However,
    as you said yourself, spammers attack other spammers. Therefore Richard
    Bos's argument is valid, and the analogy is unreasonable.

    --
    /-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
    \-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
    "The large yellow ships hung in the sky in exactly the same way that bricks
    don't."
    - Douglas Adams
     
    Joona I Palaste, Jan 15, 2005
    #10
  11. Roberto Della Pasqua

    infobahn Guest

    Joona I Palaste wrote:
    >
    > infobahn <> scribbled the following:
    > > Richard Bos wrote:
    > >> The police (usually) protect themselves from other people's, often
    > >> criminals', attacks. Spammers protect themselves from their own crimes.
    > >> The latter _is_ hypocritical, the former is not.

    >
    > > No. Spammers use email munging to protect themselves from other
    > > people's (i.e. other spammers') crimes, not from their own. I
    > > can't believe that even a spammer would be stupid enough to spam
    > > his own address(es). (All right, maybe I /can/ believe that, but
    > > I doubt whether it is true for most of them.) So the analogy,
    > > imperfect though it may be, is still reasonable.

    >
    > Police don't attack other police, even if the other police belong to a
    > different department, or an altogether different police force.


    ;-)

    > However,
    > as you said yourself, spammers attack other spammers. Therefore Richard
    > Bos's argument is valid, and the analogy is unreasonable.


    s/police/soldiers/

    <shrug>
     
    infobahn, Jan 15, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Roger Jack
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    362
    Roger Jack
    Dec 4, 2003
  2. Robert Weatherford
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    369
    Robert Weatherford
    Apr 12, 2004
  3. timinganalyzer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    776
    Pierre-Fran├žois \(f5bqp_pfm\)
    Oct 29, 2008
  4. namekuseijin

    Re: "Strong typing vs. strong testing"

    namekuseijin, Sep 27, 2010, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    214
    Views:
    3,468
    Nick Keighley
    Oct 17, 2010
  5. namekuseijin

    Re: "Strong typing vs. strong testing"

    namekuseijin, Sep 27, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    229
    Views:
    3,565
    Gregory Ewing
    Oct 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page