Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Tool Shows Would-Be Emailers If You're Swamped

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the my-dad-has-400k-messages-in-his-inbox dept.

Google 82

alphadogg writes "A Georgia Tech researcher is taking aim at email overload with a new tool that shows people thinking about messaging you just how swamped your Gmail account is, in real time. Assistant Professor of Computing Eric Gilbert's research project, taking the form of the freely available 'Courteous.ly' service, which does require you to allow access to your email account (initially the service only works with Gmail). 'Courteous.ly helps manage expectations and lets people choose to send mail when it's best for you,' he says." This sounds like an ugly thing to game, though -- it seems like a good way to keep score in a mailbombing.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

AC is a cunt. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36359562)

AC is a cunt.

Re:AC is a cunt. (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359582)

Then, fuck 'er.

How Many Ways Can This Be Used (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359568)

In way that were unintended?

I think not...

Re:How Many Ways Can This Be Used (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359598)

I though spamers would like this, but they have to either hack their way into the database or recieve a mail from you with your link.

Re:How Many Ways Can This Be Used (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359658)

Oh. Look who isn't home.

Re:How Many Ways Can This Be Used (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359638)

Seriously, I'd rather have a comprehensive email stats system that could help me isolate exactly who's wasting my time with pointless emails.

Re:How Many Ways Can This Be Used (4, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360444)

Hey, you're only being asked to open your email account to a domain registered in Libya, it's not like anything bad could happen...
crap, I think I broke my own sarcasm meter.

Re:How Many Ways Can This Be Used (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36366010)

I'd propose v2 for this system:

Instead of telling people how busy my inbox is, why not give them full access? This way maybe they will see how busy I am and may even help me by responding some of those annoying emails from David Thorne...

Re:How Many Ways Can This Be Used (1)

xystren (522982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361628)

Have we come this far where we need a services to tell people that email us that we are being swamped with email? Have we becomes such an instant now society we just can't exercise some patience and god forbid, wait for it?

Come on people, is this really necessary? Anyone considered the concerns with supplying a 3rd party with access to your email? I bet you spammer would love to get hold of that information.

Not an option I would even considered, let alone supply a password for.

No, please. No. (5, Insightful)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359578)

The beauty of email is you can determine when to reply to a message or send correspondence. Compared to talking on the phone, email is less stressful, especially if you are doing support.

This tool would make it where people could say, "Why haven't you responded to me? You don't look like you have a lot of other emails coming in so I am sure you read my message".

I do not know if I am alone, but I refuse to ever let my email client send those email-has-been-read notifiers to let the sender know I got the email. People do not know if you got their letter/bill/request/mailer in your postal mail box, and people do not know if you have listened to your voicemail or how full your voicemail box. Why the heck should I give them insight into my email inbox?!

Re:No, please. No. (5, Insightful)

tgl (462237) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359654)

Yup, my reaction exactly. Whoever wrote this tool completely failed to get email. It's not IM, and that is not a bug.

Re:No, please. No. (4, Interesting)

ccabanne (1063778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360068)

Exactly, it is a feature of email. I've suggest adopting slow email; eventually people will expect to get a well thought out reply from you within 24 or 48 hours --- http://notes-from-a-sticky-wicket.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-slow-email-movement.html [blogspot.com]

Re:No, please. No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363332)

I've suggest adopting slow email

I started doing this at work.

I check my e-mail three times a day: after lunch; before I go home, so that I may plan for tomorrow; and, since I frequently work staggered hours, when I come in to work, in case something new came in while I was off. I answer my e-mail only twice a day: at the beginning of work, and after lunch. Short questions get answered immediately, answers that will take longer (either because the answer is more involved, or because my queue is overflowing) get an estimate of when I will answer (even if it is just “I can’t even begin to look at this until Thursday”). Everyone gets a maximum 4 (working) hour turn-around.

I realize that not everyone is in a position to implement such a scheme, but for me it has resulted in a huge productivity improvement. As an added bonus, client satisfaction has also increased noticeably.

Re:No, please. No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36366096)

I guess everyone's perception of slow is relative. I check email about twice a week, but I tell people in my signature that I only check once a week and to expect replies to take up to 14 days. I do this to set their expectations. Responding within 24-48 hours seems lightning fast to me.

Re:No, please. No. (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359754)

I'm inclined to agree. The key reason I want people to email me is it gives me a chance to craft a response. That's actually in their own best interests, too.

Re:No, please. No. (0)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359844)

Sidenote: Voicemail can somewhat tell people how full your voicemail is, by whether it's ABSOLUTELY full or not (which is my preferred voicemail status, if I'm not able to set up call forwarding to my own LRN).

But yes, Read-receipts are a pain, and I never let my mail client send them. Usually the people who want to know if I've read their message are the ones (in my experience) who are just wanting to be sure I've read their bullshit excuses for not doing their job, and want to continue not doing their job even though I've spelled out for them what steps they need to take. Such is the life of the customer-facing group versus the non-customer-facing asshats.

Re:No, please. No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36360058)

Sidenote: Voicemail can somewhat tell people how full your voicemail is, by whether it's ABSOLUTELY full or not (which is my preferred voicemail status, if I'm not able to set up call forwarding to my own LRN).

Email does this too - if your mailbox is full your mail server will send an error message back to the sender's server, who can then retry a few times before giving up and passing the error on to you.

Re:No, please. No. (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360198)

Where I work, read receipts are from grad students that think the world hinges on their research and expect immediate service (despite the fact that by policy, research requests are 5th priority). They expect as soon as someone has read their e-mail they should have a reply in minutes, and if they don't they'll come down and whine. As such, no returns ever.

People, grad students in particular, are not very good at understanding the idea that you may have more than one thing to do and can't get to their thing right away.

Re:No, please. No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363032)

well, it is sort of true, depending on how you see a thing..

you are eompolyed, you said so yourself, you have more than one thing to do. yet a good part of your employment has been creating these grads.

naturally their world is hinged on getting their research funded, if anyone else shares this view is academic :)

this may seem a bit too sentimental, but are you surprised that after teaching these people how to research, that you are part of their world, and assume you will help them?

the real world is more like, you paid your tuition, consider yourself lucky you even have a diploma--many don't, now GTFO--there is obviously nothing I can stea--err Hn^hn^hn^ use from your research, so what could you possibly offer me?

getting to close to the mark in your research publish or perish world?

No kidding (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360154)

All this would do is lead to people expecting a response as soon as their e-mail was read and/or when your box showed no e-mails waiting and them getting angry when they don't get it.

People tend to have an attitude of "My problem is the most important in the world," and "If you aren't doing something RIGHT NOW that looks really important you should be working on it." Something like this would only make that tendency worse. I'd have people coming down saying "Why haven't you responded to my e-mail, the thing shows you have no unread messages," as though when I click a message I am able to drop everything and immediately respond.

As you say, the brilliance of e-mail is that it is non-realtime. You send a message, I send back a response when I can. All things like this would do is encourage people to think of e-mail as something that should demand a response at once.

Also all this would really do is encourage me to not open e-mail until I think I am ready to deal with them. It would be in my interests to keep my backlog "full" so that people would leave me alone and allow me to solve problems. Fine, but that means I can't read what it coming in and prioritize. Right now I can see something and say "This is important, and easy to solve, so I should shelve what I'm doing and go take care of it." I wouldn't be able to do that if I had to keep messages unread just so people weren't harassing me to do things since I "wasn't busy."

Personally I try to keep my inbox with no unread messages, because all unread messages means is I don't know about something. However that doesn't relate to my workload at all. Some days, 40 messages could come in all for areas I don't deal with so even if all 40 were unread I could very well be available for immediate action if needed. Others (like today) something critical is down and I'm spending all day working on it so even though I'm reading e-mail, I can't go and help with anything else.

Re:No kidding (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360288)

Also all this would really do is encourage me to not open e-mail until I think I am ready to deal with them.

Or write a tool that would generate a few dozen emails to apparently fill up your mailbox when you wanted to get someone off your back. Or just subscribe to a bunch of mailing lists.

Re:No kidding (2)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360522)

Fine, but that means I can't read what it coming in and prioritize. Right now I can see something and say "This is important, and easy to solve, so I should shelve what I'm doing and go take care of it."

Perhaps you and your clients/customers/peers have e-mail confused with bug tracking or other CRM software. This is an altogether different problem.

I wouldn't be able to do that if I had to keep messages unread just so people weren't harassing me to do things since I "wasn't busy."

This is where you need to put people in their place. However, I can sympathize. More often than not people are starting to use e-mail as if it were tweets/ status posts, which amounts to an overflowing inbox. Every now and then they can use a good scolding for sending too much e-mail. If they are new web socialites using FB and Twitter, perhaps you can suggest to them that you will look at their streams for updates (and never follow up on that suggestion because you know that its a complete waste of time).

Others (like today) something critical is down and I'm spending all day working on it so even though I'm reading e-mail, I can't go and help with anything else.

Especially when they require a detailed response and your response back was tl;dr.

Re:Too much email? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360750)

Hmm, there isn't exactly too much email, it's about what people expect of different type of email.

Gmail(&others) has "mark as read", so we have escaped read receipts because that isn't even correlated to if the email has even been read. I let people send me whatever they want. Half the time I crusade about not getting enough info since I am on lead for documenting stuff. So send me stuff! It's easy to just park it as "document later."

As for the status, I will encourage people to use the Gmail (or other?) Chat Status as their dynamic status marker. Put anything you want there! Baseball results, coordinate pizza parties, monday blues. That means it doesn't send an email as a "status".

Re:No kidding (2)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361240)

If you ever use this service, you may want to consider looking at the email, marking it unread if you don't have time for it, and only allowing the email to be marked "read" while you are working on it.

Re:No kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363486)

looking at the email, marking it unread if you don't have time for it

Then you have to have some mechanism for differentiating between e-mail you have marked unread because you are not ready to work on it yet, and e-mail that is really unread.

You would be implementing a fix to fix a fix that solved a non-existant problem. Why? Just don’t use such a service in the first place.

Re:No kidding (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36363268)

Exactly. But it seems people have got it in their little heads that store-and-forward mechanisms (basically anything non-IM) is immediate. Probably started around the time people got the idea that texting and twitter were another form of IM. Or facebook messaging.

No, they aren't, and I don't respond immediately. Getting angry at me because you emailed/twittered/IM'd/texted me about an emergency isn't likely to make me respond any faster. If you really need me this instant, there's a phone, or walk over to me. Maybe IM, if I'm actively responding to it, if not, I may not see or attend to it.

Chances are, I may see your request and ignore it simply because it's not relevant at this point in time nor does it seem urgent to me (your lack of planning does not consitute an emergency on my part) and I'll get back to it later. Especially since I may be busy with other things - if it's that important there are many other ways to reach me and express its importance. Taking the time to pick up the phone is one, as is trying to actually physically find me.

If I'm stll not reachable, well, I'm probably doing something and enjoying my unreachability. There are very few true emergencies in life where an immediate response is required, and if it's one of those, there are many ways to reach me still. E.g., if I'm driving, call the police who can stop me and inform me of the situation. Even some emergencies that you're helpless to fix (e.g., overseas relative died) can certainly wait until I'm reachable again - there's nothing I can do and getting to the airport a couple of hours earlier isn't going to help.

It's the only way to cope.

Re:No, please. No. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360184)

The beauty of this tool is that I could probably somehow feed it bad data indicating I'm pretty much swamped with e-mails every single second of every single day of my life.

Re:No, please. No. (2)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361650)

That's what it would do for me- I do not have good e-mail sorting or reading practices. I have about 1600 unread messages that I'll probably never, ever get to.

Come to think of it, we use gmail at work too. If they ever start handing out work via email, maybe I should use a system like this...

Re:No, please. No. (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360570)

I have felt this way about presence technology in general. There may be some applications for it for some people. Very few of us though are doing day to day stuff that is so urgent we can't be interrupted to take care of an emergency. If there is a problem with a major application, page me and I will come running out of my meeting. You don't need to be reading my calendar to find out exactly where I am.

Want to converse, send an e-mail. I will see it pop up, if I feel I can be interrupted I'll reply if not I'll reply later. It should not matter to you if I am on the phone or just thinking through some program logic and don't want to task switch.

All of this type of stuff really just leads to hurt feels for senders and stress for recipients. Recipients feel pressured to react to everything because their "presence" information implies they can, and makes it more difficult to tell little white lies like "I was totally swamped support calls and that's why I could not get back to you right away about the X project."

Re:No, please. No. (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361724)

+1 Insightful. There is just no need for anyone to know what I'm doing every minute of every day. What's important is that I'm available when needed, accountable, and the work gets done as scheduled.

Re:No, please. No. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36362280)

. There is just no need for anyone to know what I'm doing every minute of every day.

There is a clear need for this from the world marketing departments and sadly they are currently ruling the corporate world...

It almost makes sense. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36362296)

If I were actually fairly busy, I'd love to have this sort of thing available to the family members who forward me crap. Funny stuff, interesting stuff, but really just pointless, time-wasting stuff. I'm really tempted to make a policy that if you don't have anything useful to add to the forwarded message, it gets flagged as spam -- I care what you have to say, but I don't care about the funny cat video you found.

I have to imagine that people would think twice before sending me People of Wall-Mart (with all the images attached to the email, naturally, rather than just fucking linking to it) if they knew my inbox had a few thousand unread messages.

But even this use would backfire in about the same way -- as soon as I actually get my inbox cleared, I can expect a hundred new useless messages from people who were waiting for the best time to send low-priority crap. And I tend to send email-has-been-read notifiers, but conditionally.

The whole point of email over IM or chat is that it's asynchronous. Not that you couldn't have all of them be asynchronous, which is one reason I was excited about Wave -- you could have the discussion be exactly as synchronous as it needed to be. Still, there's IM, phones, and finding me in person for when you need an answer RIGHT NOW -- but don't abuse it; the phone is on vibrate specifically to allow me to ignore a call if I don't feel like it's urgent. Email gets answered in the same way that tickets get closed -- as a break from other work, or when I run out of things to do, or during some time I've deliberately set aside for that.

Fine print (4, Informative)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359592)

http://courteous.ly/consent [courteous.ly]

CONSENT DOCUMENT FOR ENROLLING ADULT PARTICIPANTS IN A RESEARCH STUDY Georgia Institute of Technology, Project Title: courteous.ly
Investigators: Eric Gilbert, Ph.D.
Protocol and Consent Title: H11133
You are being asked to be a volunteer in a research study.
Purpose

The purpose of this study is to understand if exposing hidden aspects of social media makes the media better. We also want to investigate whether courteous.ly makes an impact on the overall amount of email participants receive. We will enroll as many people as come to our site in this study. In addition to providing a useful tool, we also may contact participants for future email studies. Whether you choose to participate in a future study is up to you at that time. By default, you will be opted out of future studies. Your future decision will not affect your use of courteous.ly now.

Participants in this study must have a Gmail account and must be 18 years or older to participate.

If you choose to give courteous.ly access to your Gmail account, the application will compute a measure of your email load. It does this by counting the number of messages in your email folders. The values for your email load can only be "light," "normal," or "high." courteous.ly will generate a unique url for you to put in your email signature. The intent of the custom url is for your email contacts to be able to see your real-time email load. The sign-up and configuration process should take you about 10 minutes.

Re:Fine print (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359798)

Yeah, this is not the right concept for email.
It actually takes away from what email was designed for. As someone else pointed out, it is not a phone call, but a faster way to received a message (instead of snail mail) and queued as such.

Now that this is pointed out, it looks more like they are wanting hard facts of how many emails people get on a minute, hour, daily basis for some other reason.

Re:Fine print (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36362310)

Sounds like the sort of study I'd love to read about, later, but I'd hate to participate in.

tool for attackers (2)

IZN0GUD (804758) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359600)

this tool is enabler - any potential attacker would be easily able to establish patterns of one's behaviour and than use the opportunity when one is not e-present to impose and take time to work through all logins and whatnot one has.

Well, we do need ways to manage email ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359668)

This isn't the right thing for me, because I don't receive very much email. Yet I am tremendously pleased that they are looking for ways to prioritize email that puts the sender in the loop, because I've run into far too many situations where something gets lost because I'm not prepared to deal with it at the moment. (Example: I don't do personal email while at work and I don't deal with work email at home, so don't send ask for an appointment at 6 pm expecting a reply before you go to bed.)

Yes there are filters and there is communicating expectations to friends/colleagues. But the former doesn't allow for the sender to use their discretion and automated email systems have no way of knowing when is a good time of day to tell me that my library books are overdue or send the receipt for my latest purchase.

Is an immediate reply expected? (2)

slinches (1540051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359692)

Do people expect immediate replies to emails? I've always understood it to be for time-insensitive matters and any time I need a quick answer I call or IM/text If I can't talk to them in person.

I could see this service being useful in managing expectations of when a response will be sent. Although, I think it would only be good for when you're sending emails that need a timely reply to people you only communicate with through email. That situation doesn't seem to be all that common in my experience.

Re:Is an immediate reply expected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363876)

Do people expect immediate replies to emails?

Unfortunately, I once had a boss who did. I was expected to answer his e-mails promptly. I was formally reprimanded for not answering his e-mails quickly enough, even though I repeatedly pointed out to him, and to Human Resources that in order to perform my defined duties I was frequently not in my office to receive e-mail. (I was not given a work-supplied pager/e-mail device, and I was damned if I would use my own personal equipment for such idiocy.) I also repeatedly asked both my boss and Human Resources for a definition of “promptly” without ever receiving an answer. (How is it that I was reprimanded for not performing to expectations when no expectations were set?)

That boss was also a flaming hypocrite. To be able to defend myself, I went back over all of our e-mail correspondence. To most of his e-mails I responded within one to two (working) hours. All but one of my responses was within three and a half hours. One was within four hours.

None of his e-mail responses to me was sent in less than four hours. The vast majority of his replies took more than a working day. Some took more than two days. Some of my very specific questions of him were never answered at all. But I was reprimanded.

Thankfully, I don”t work for that boss anymore.

"require you to allow access to your email" (4, Insightful)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359698)

I am kind of astounded at how easily people give away access to their email accounts, no matter how harmless the intent of the email is. I got swamped by invites from facebook when several of my friends gave it access to their address books. Now that's just annoying, but is this guy's security up to the same level as gmail's? I tend to doubt it...

As an aside, what the hell happened to slashdot? A couple days ago it was its usual tolerable self, but now I have the most garish ads for Adobe authoring tools and groupon and nonsensical cloud virtualization things, and it's slow as hell. I am happy to co-exist with ads if they pay the bills, but these ads kind of ruin everything. Is slashdot on its last legs?

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (2)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359728)

You're browsing the web without Adblock Plus? I'm nonplussed! You're nonplussed!

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359790)

If you're browsing without adblock, you're encouraging that sort of ad-based-revenue driven escalation of advertising intrusiveness.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (1)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359834)

If you're browsing without adblock, you're encouraging that sort of ad-based-revenue driven escalation of advertising intrusiveness.

I disagree. I don't mind ads, mostly. But am I ever going to buy Framemaker? Am I ever going to use Groupon? Am I ever going to deploy IBM's application virtualization infrastructure to my cloud? No. The problem is that this ad network sucks, in almost every dimension. I'm pretty sure that this is the worst ad network that I see on regular basis. (OK, maybe Conde Naste's "let's cover the entire page of our own content with an ad" is worse, but not by much. At least it's just one click to get rid of it.) It seems painfully obvious to me, but I'll say it out loud -- If your ads make your content worse, accepting them is a bad move. Find another way.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36359848)

hmm. your first sentence made me think that this might be a different experiment in disguise.

give people harmless but maybe useful reason to share private email account, see how many fall for it, write report about idiots sharing their private data too easily! :-O

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359960)

I got swamped by invites from facebook when several of my friends gave it access to their address books.


You think that's bad? I'm a member of a mailing list doing community support for my favorite Linux distro. Within the last month, two different twits signed up for some social networking site I'd never heard of (a different one each time, naturally) and without thinking gave the site complete access to their address book. How do I know? I know because each site sent an invite to the list using said twit's email address. Now, multiply that by the number of mailing lists each twit was on and see how many people that added up to.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (2)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360398)

I noticed something else today. I used to be able to check a checkbox to disable ads for my worthwhile "contributions", that has now disappeared. On another note, I am also noticing that there apparently are a lot less mod points going around lately. A lot of useless comments never get moded down and worthwhile comments linger at 1 forever. I used to get mod points continuously, I haven't gotten any in months now. Not that I need to be a mod, but it seems like the system is not working as well well as it used to.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (1)

snotclot (836055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360430)

l browse the site every day and read the comments for, on average, 1/10 of articles; l didn't get mod points for like 2 years but last week l suddenly did. weird!

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36362406)

You need to post regularly in order to get modpoints. But there are plenty of weird behaviors (I posted for 2 years before I got my first ever modpoints, but that was way back). With one message a day, one reaching +5 every week or so on average, I get modpoints once or twice a month.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360854)

Yes, I'd noticed the lack of disabled adverts also.

My only gripe about mod points is that the system always seems to give them to me on a FRIDAY! I don't read Slashdot on weekends, dammit! I only read it when I'm at work!

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361430)

Disabling adverts is (was?) a stupid feature. We can all do it with adblock, and I imagine most of us do. It still doesn't let you get rid of the sidebar, so you still need to use a user script for that, which will also conveniently block any ads there even if you aren't using adblock plus. The only place I am using such a script I am also using adblock plus — it is on a netbook where I simply have no room for it, and Slashdot's crap layout mangles on a narrow display.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361894)

I don't run AdBlock. Ads are annoying, but I feel bad if I disable them on an ad-supported site. It feels like a nice way to strangle sites I like if I do.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36362952)

Then sites need to do a better job picking their advertising partners. Tired of the useless, insulting, and downright hostile advertising, though much of that last sentence is redundant... Ads are bad. I wouldn't click or buy through them anyway so it's not like they're missing much.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36360862)

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                                              Version 3, 29 June 2007

  Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                                        Preamble

    The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

    Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

    Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                                              TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    0. Definitions.

    "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

    "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

    "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

    To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

    A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

    To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

    To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

    An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

    1. Source Code.

    The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.

    A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.

    The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

    The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.

    The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
Source.

    The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.

    2. Basic Permissions.

    All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

    You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

    Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

    3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

    No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.

    When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.

    4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

    You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

    5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

    You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
        it, and giving a relevant date.

        b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
        released under this License and any conditions added under section
        7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
        "keep intact all notices".

        c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
        License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
        License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
        additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
        regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
        permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
        invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

        d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
        Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
        interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
        work need not make them do so.

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.

    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

        a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
        Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
        customarily used for software interchange.

        b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

        c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
        written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
        alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
        only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
        with subsection 6b.

        d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
        place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
        Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
        further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
        Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
        copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
        may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
        that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
        clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
        Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
        Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
        available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

        e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
        you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
        Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
        charge under subsection 6d.

    A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.

    A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.

    "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.

    If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).

    The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.

    Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.

    7. Additional Terms.

    "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

    When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

        a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
        terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

        b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
        author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
        Notices displayed by works containing it; or

        c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
        requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
        reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

        d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
        authors of the material; or

        e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
        trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

        f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
        material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
        it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
        any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
        those licensors and authors.

    All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

    If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

    Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.

    8. Termination.

    You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11).

    However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

    Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

    Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

    An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

    You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

    11. Patents.

    A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

    A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

    Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

    In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

    If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.

    If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

    A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

    Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

    12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

    If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

    13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.

    14. Revised Versions of this License.

    The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

    If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

    Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

    15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

    THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    16. Limitation of Liability.

    IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

    17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

    If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

                                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                        How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
        Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

        This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

    If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

        <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
        This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".

    You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

    The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36362274)

Your karma has probably dropped. Or you were borderline before and now the parameters have changed slightly (and you are now excluded). Given the rash of sudden comments about it, I suspect that these parameters are set manually instead of being slowly adjusted in some automatic fashion.

I get mod points every few days and still have the disable ads checkbox available.

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (0)

Hermanas (1665329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360814)

To answer your question "Is slashdot on its last legs?":

Yes. Yes, it is.

I checked the other day, and Slashdot seems to be going the way of VB6... Google Correlate [googlelabs.com] .

Re:"require you to allow access to your email" (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36362000)

From the site's FAQ,

We would love to work with every email account in the world. But we don't want to store passwords. That's what it comes down to. Gmail has an infrastructure that allows courteous.ly to work without ever knowing or storing anybody's password.

I dunno how it works, but security may not be that big a deal.

Best not do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36362562)

Especially if you live in Tenn.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/06/tennessee_makes.html

WHAT COULD GO WRONG ?? SONY ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36359780)

CheckPoint ?? FarPoint ?? WayPoint ??

The old form... (1, Funny)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359792)

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante (x) social

approach to [controlling your inbox]. 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
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) 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
(x) Microsoft will not put up with it
(x) Google 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
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) 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
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(x) I don't want the [university] 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!

Re:The old form... (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359846)

HA!

Nice

Re:The old form... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359868)

(x) Microsoft will not put up with it
(x) Google will not put up with it

Wanna bet they actually will? Most probable, implementing it on their own?

Motivation: both of them want a chunk of "social media" (to the level of desperation of Google conditioning [slashdot.org] the employee bonuses on social media success) .
After all, a "real friend" needs to now how busy you are to protect your time, Google will provide you with the service and allow you to control the list of real friends. I think they'll even go a step further and tell the "friend" how many of your unread emails are important or just unpaid bills notifications: this is why you have friends, isn't it?

Re:The old form... (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359880)

Thank god I set my beer down before getting this far down in the comment thread, or my monitor would have required the attention of some Lysol wipes.

Deadly Boss Mod? (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359856)

So do the busy messages go something like this?
dbIII@email.address is with busy meeting HR 12/20 still employed 12%

Dabangg' achievements (1)

jeff.thomes86 (2213146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359864)

The 'Dabangg' achievements have resulted in supplementary break and get together in her roles. In 'Kick' her subsequently with her mentor Salman, the good-looking lass will be like much more display space. Yeah, there's absolutely much supplementary scope for me in 'Kick' than 'Dabangg'. And I am disappearing to construct the best of it," says the ecstatic Sonakshi.

Privacy (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359876)

The only people with whom I would comfortably share the status of my inbox are people I know and like well enough to prioritize their messages over others, and are too few to swamp my inbox by themselves.

And even then, I like controlling how soon an answer is expected from me. The whole point of email over IM, to me, is to have time to form a response or even get other stuff out of the way before reading it.

Awesome... (2)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359888)

So anyone who is "courteous" will see that I have "high" number of unread emails and make the decision not to email me. People who aren't "courteous" either won't look, or won't care and just go ahead and send me email. Given that it's the "courteous" people with whom I most want to have contact, this is a sure-fire way to make email worse.

The best thing about email is that it's possible to let it sit unread until such a time when you can deal with it. What does this guy think will happen? My parents see I have a lot of unread email and decide not to email me, they then periodically check over the next month, but my unread messages never drop below "high" because they only ever check at a certain time of day and I only ever clear out my unread messages at a certain time of day. He wants to create a bastard chimera that has the worst parts of instant messaging and email.

Even Better (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359946)

Here's my idea -- "A new tool that helps to bypass swamped email accounts, by immediately presenting the message to the recipient in a pop-up box. The service does require you to install a small local client which provides instant access to messages. Helps cut down on clogged email boxes; if you don't have time for the message, close the popup and it goes away forever."

Sounds great!

Improved Invasive infomercials? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359982)

Was I the only one who read the headline as:
New Tool-Shows Would Be Emailers If You're Swamped
and thought the submission was about Internet connected set-top boxes allowing Power-tool infomercials to detect if you're already buried under a ton of messages and then send you a few more emails hoping that you'll click them accidentally?

(Kind of like how Google ads can be camouflaged to look like part of the site's content to snag a few accidental clicks...)

Nighttime... daytime (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360078)

My inbox has a few peaks in traffic depending on who's awake in what timezone, but the average busy time is roughly 2am-7pm monday-friday in my local timezone. If you find a quiet time to email me the chances are it's when i'm asleep or otherwise not at the computer. When I get back to the computer again i'll have your email + half a day's worth of other email waiting for me.

Just because you emailed me in a quiet time doesn't mean i'm attending to my email during that time (even if it happens to be in the middle of a sunday afternoon), and doesn't mean that when I get back to my email that yours won't be one of a thousand waiting for me.

To successfully negotiate the above would require the service knowing when i'm attending to my emails, not just when i'm receiving them. That's more information than I'd like to be known by some remote entity that has access to my mailbox.

Not really a help (1)

southlander (1130379) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360176)

Most people either keep clean inboxes or messy ones. So if you are one that always has hundreds of emails in your inbox it will perpetually show you are "swamped".

Re:Not really a help (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360210)

It would be a lot cleaner if google supported Hierarchical imap folders in gmail, but they don't. I guess it's the old you get what you pay for.

Besides the obvious malicous ways it can be used.. (1)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360206)

I don't think this algoritm would give a good insight in how I use email myself.
I subscribe to quite a few newsletters, and as such, my email inbox is almost always filled. Most of them I directly archive (they get auto-tagged when appearing in my inbox; so they're easier to file), and some I leave in my inbox for later browsing/reference. Also other important emails I leave in my inbox (yes, I should be filing those too) when I read them, and mark them unread so I know I still have to do something with it.

This behaviour would lead the sender to believe I'm always swamped.

And to be honest: I think this is a solution trying to be found for a problem that doesn't really exist.
If you want someone to read your email, make sure to have a proper subject-title, or use the in-office urgency-tags.

Duh? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360260)

"lets people choose to send mail when it's best for you,' he says."

It's EMAIL, not IM, not a phone call. You send it when you want. The recipient reads it and replies when he gets around to it. How does "when it's best for you" make any sense in this context? The only vaguely sensible use I can think is if you suspect an email box has been bombed; or he just isn't checking his email at all. But if it's time sensitive, use the phone don't screw around with this.

This just makes email *more* difficult (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360584)

If I'm busy, I still have to deal with all the issues.

And people still have things they need me to do. The fact that I'm busy doesn't change that, and if people used this system it would just make it seem like I was less busy than I was, while the fires I needed to put out continued to smolder.

Gmail has a "priority inbox" which seems like the rational answer: handle the important tasks first.

This is only a valid measure of how busy you are.. (2)

croftj (2359) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360646)

If your job is answering emails!!! If you are swamped with work, you might just have 1 unread email in your inbox. Then again, it just might be a spam that slipped past the spam filter (i hear it even happens with google).

Still, I hope to God that my inbox stats are never used as the measure of my work load!

Finger Protocol? What's next, remaking .plan? (2)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361556)

Anyone remember finger [wikipedia.org] ? I never liked it, because I don't want anyone knowing the status of my email, not even way back then. "Georgia Tech researcher" my ass; this is a tech historian/preservationist.

No way ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36361912)

I'm am not going to sign up to some service which monitors my email load for me ... I don't trust it, and I don't trust that it won't become a security risk.

And, really, I've more or less decided I don't trust any URL ending in .ly -- between not having any idea of what's on the other end of most of those link shorteners (goatse anyone), and not really trusting Lybia in any way, I don't trust that some shenanigans aren't happening or couldn't be made to happen.

I'm sure as hell not trusting some third party with access to my email. Do they really think a whole lot of people are going to do that? Or is everyone ready to do such things and trust this site?

I realize I'm probably on the paranoid end of such things, but I just can't fathom signing up for something like this. You can't have my banking password, either.

Absurd (2)

DigiTechGuy (1747636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36362444)

Why would I want to use this, on either end of the equation? I send email for things that are not time-critical, or that I would like to have a documented record of. In the event of a somewhat time critical issue I will opt for IM, or if genuinely time critical, a phone call. We have different systems in place to serve different purposes.

flawed system (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364142)

I have tons of unread email, most people might too, but I'm free.

They don't need to see my inbox... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36365394)

...to display a static HTML page that says I'm swamped.

An email busy signal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36365868)

What an great idea how do we get it into the smtp protocol i dont want access to 3rd parties infecting my inbox thats not going to fly well with me however I would love to have the ability to turn on a busy signal until a later time

Right.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36387442)

Because we really want people to know how busy/not busy we are..

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?