Slashdot Mirror
Who Is An ISP?
happynut writes "Last Friday there was an article about the new anti-spam U.S. legislation that might become law.
Within this bill, the only non-government party that can sue for damages is an 'Internet Access Service' (Page 44, line 1 (Sec 7(g)), and Page 8 line 15 (Sec 3(11)) of
the bill). Some reports have treated 'Internet Access Service' as the same as
an ISP. But if you follow down the definition listed in Sec 3(11)
(see
47 USC Sec 231(e)(4)), it defines an Internet Access Service as: '(4) Internet access service --
The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or
other services offered over the Internet, and may also include
access to proprietary content, information, and other services as
part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term
does not include telecommunications services.'
My question is: isn't this definition so broad as to cover all of us who run
a mail server? It doesn't mention commercial, or for money, or to the public;
it just says 'as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'"
So if I'm running Kazaa, can I be legally declaired an ISP. And thus, be sued directly?
Life is not for the lazy.
SCORE!
I suspect that the answer to this is something which will only be decided by high paid lawyers standing before an appeal or supreme court.
If your intepretation is correct, then that is a good thing. Far more worring, is the provision of an opt-out list. If the world can see that my e-mail, even if only so that I can say I don't like spam, then I reckon I'll get spammed all the more.
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
The way I read it, this would cover a home page as well, as it offers customers (family) access to information (your pictures of the kids, blogs, whatever). Does this make sense to anyone else?
No matter where you go, there you are. So Enjoy it.
Definitely covers me - I have a co-located server with clients websites running on it. I rent all my bandwidth though - would never really have thought of myself as an ISP, although I guess I fall under the auspice of "Internet Service Provider" - the typical image is either a dial-up merchant, or someone like Colt/BT/Level3/(insert huge company here)
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I provide internet service (via my cable connection) to the computers in my establishment (dwelling). I provide basic services to these computers, including mail, dns, and smb/nfs.
Next question.
The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
How are "consumers" defined? Members of the general public who pay money to receive these services? If it's something like that, then those of us who run mail (etc.) services only to non-consumers shouldn't be affected. Right?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
IANAL, but I have considered an ISP to a company that provides access to the Net with or without Mail or Usenet. If you,
Support the Chagossians
...access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does not include telecommunications services.
As I (IANAL) read it, it seems narrowly tailored to include AOL ("proprietary content") and exclude DSL-providing Baby Bells and possibly cable companies ("not... telecommunications services") (I'm not sure whether cable companies are "telecommunications services".)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
It doesn't mention commercial, or for money, or to the public; it just says 'as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'
Consumers = the public in this case.
Internet access packages = typically non-free.
Selling it on any appreciable scale = often commercial.
I believe these are the interpretations they're aiming for, and the ones that will be upheld should they ever be taken to task.
The coolest voice ever.
Hey, I run the linux box that is the firewall between our home LAN and the cable modem. I provide internet access to my wife (and our parrots, when they play with the keyboard). I do all the troubleshooting of things like email and web-access problems. So can I am obviously qualify as an ISP, right? It'd be fun to be able to sue the spammers for DoS of our cable modem and wasting our time.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I RTFA but i'm not sure if I qualify. I supply a cable modem connection to 12 students in rental rooms. If I use a switch and charge a monthly rate, does this make me an ISP. Does there have to be a server involved? Does reselling access count?
Stay tuned for new sig...
Time for me to declare myself as a non-profit organization since they make ANYBODY running a server sound like a business or an organization in itself.
Should be proud of a 5 year old kid now, he runs a quake server, he's a businessman in his own right. Go government! Doing their job to encourage my kids to get into business!
"a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet"
reword it to...
"a service that enables users to access...the Internet"
I think the list of "things" confuses the definition. but it only says things that ALLOW this access, not the services themself.
does this mean it includes MS as an IAS since they provide IE6?
PS: I hope my comment makes sense now. I posted the first version of my comment without previewing first!
Support the Chagossians
Bush helps garner first post!
So if it excludes telecommunication services, then doesn't it exclude the actual company you dial in to, and if it doesn't, perhaps it still excludes businesses that bundle phone service with internet access (I used to work for an ISP that did this [Tidalwave Internet in Northern Virginia]) from suing.
Travis
Especially if you provide useful information.
So go ahead and offer it to consumers! It doesn't have to be a realistic offer; $10,000/mo for a POP account should be sufficient. This will enable you to sue spammers.
Granted, I still haven't even been able to find the full text of the bill anywhere in order to verify this.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
"I have considered an ISP to a company that provides access to the Net with or without Mail or Usenet".
..but, of course, we're talking about politicians, so they would have found a way to make it "IAP" confusing ;-)
That's the way I define ISP, too. The thing is that even the term ISP (Internet Service Provider) is confusing. It should be "Internet Access Provider". If it was "IAP", then there would be less confusion...
"Such term does not include telecommunications services."
That's all of it, since moving bits around on the Internet is a telecommunications service. No wonder spammers love this bill. Everyone who would give a rat about it can't sue them.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
I think Napster would have liked the definition offered. If memory serves me correctly, they tried to define themselves as an ISP to use the safe harbor clause of the DMCA...and it didn't hold up in a court room.
Ron Paul
Why should it make that distinction? A university providing access to its students, or a "free" (i.e. advertiser-supported) dial-up provider differs fundamentally from AOL or Earthlink or MSN or your local independent ISP only in its economic model.
"it seems narrowly tailored to include AOL ("proprietary content") and exclude DSL-providing Baby Bells and possibly cable companies ("not... telecommunications services")"
Broadband services usually provide e-mail service to residential accounts and assorted other services (e.g. DNS) to business accounts. I think this phrase is intended to single out the backbone operators, folks whose customers are all other ISPs.
is to allow people who are directly affected financially by spammers to sue them. These people are generally ISPs who need more storage and bandwidth to deal with receiving and storing spam. It reminds me of the fax laws since there was concern there that advertisers were making their targets pay for ink and paper to distribute their ads via fax.
Vote for Pedro
While I hope that I _do_ classify as an ISP, (read: I want to sue folks who spam my mail server.) I find it sad that we vote officials into office that legislate this "crap" as "law". Moreover it's sad that (assuming this becomes law) it will cost someone untold millions in lawyers fee's to make this law even someone worth more than the paper it's printed on. Trash in, Trash out.
I certainly hope so. Anyone who runs a mail server is burdened by the costs that result from the "abuse of the commons" that Spam is.
Maybe "they" did something right, for a change.
a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
You could consider a protocol (such as HTTP or FTP) to be a service that offers these very things, so could we possibly glean from this that only a protocol can sue? Damn sneaky if you ask me...
"I like you, but I wouldn't want to see you working with subatomic particles."
If I use a switch and charge a monthly rate, does this make me an ISP.
Perhaps.
If you want to claim ISP status, so you can sue spammers, start charging a fee. Then provide "free" beer to your students every month for roughly the cost of the fee. You get the right to sue spammers, your students get beer. Everyone wins!
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
...let's see how many lawyer for a day Slashdotter's there are. :P
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Right, so AOL, M$N and all can spam you to oblivion and you can't do anything about it. Don't even think of mailing your AOL using mom, though. If you get through their "spammer" blacklists, you will be fined. Expect the disparity between the computer you run and the one that M$-McDonald-Acme-Soft to grow larger as more dumb laws are crammed through clueless legislatures preocupied with bigger issues, like becoming an Empire.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Perhaps God could have declared some basic grammar to you? Just a thought...
yes, please make the do-not-spam registry from MD5 hashes, please, please, please, otherwise it will be abused by those beyond the reach of U.S. law.
My impression of the "anti-spam" legislation is that it is pro-spam, and one more example of U.S. government corruption.
Dave Letterman said, "When you make out your part of the check for $87,000,000,000 to help Iraq, remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton." (Halliburton is Vice-President Dick Cheney's company.)
You run a "server". It provides service through the internet. You are an internet service provider. What is the difference between your computer and any of the boxes at Google? None. You should expect and demand all the rights and privleges that your "ISP" expects and demands.
The problem is that your don't have those rights. My ISP explcilty prohibits "servers" of any sort and then blocks ports inbound and outbound to enforce the difference. It's an abuse of a public network, built with monopoly protection (cable), and an outrage.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
you don't allow access to services over the internet. you are a service on the internet. big
[1] "Autoresponders" were more popular before the Web became "The Internet". A particular query e-mailed to an autoresponder's address resulted in a reply to the sender's address containing an attachment.
If you read a law and can't understand it, it is by that very fact a corrupt law. The reason you can't understand the "anti-spam" law is that they don't want you to understand it. It is intended to accomplish some hidden purpose.
...but how does something so obvious and oft-repeated get a "Score:5, Insightful"?
... it is easy to take a dictionary of common passwords (or e-mail addresses), hash it and store on a CD, then match hashes from CD with hashed e-mail list. It is much harder is hash includes even a short 'salt' prefix (for 2-letter salt your encripted dictionary will require 1,024 CDs).
OTOH, I understand that you were talking about something which is (slightly? substantially?) different, but it might be useful to keep those simple tricks from the old days in mind.
Paul B.
is it possible that if a spam relay gets placed on a public access terminal in a public library (and many rural ones don't have expertise to handle this) ...
I understand the accountability issues with this but can we deprive the public of access to information they would not otherwise be able to get.
We are at a point it seems to me of having to make hard decisions but are looking in the wrong places.
TG
This is going to be a fun one and I hope it gets tested. Had the phrase included "customer" instead of "consumer," then it would be very clear that you would have to sell the services to have any rights under the law. But "consumer" can simply mean "user," and at that point my cat, who likes my screensavers, is a consumer of my computer (if not my internet connection).
Methinks they worded the law in a way they didn't intend, but which is actually more favorable for us. But wait, we hate loopholes, right? Not this time? OK! ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If your service enables users to access content over the internet, then you are an IAS. That service can be part of a package that includes a dial-up/broadband internet connection, but if your only service is a "telecommunications service" then you are not an IAS.
The reasonable interpretation of this is that you have to provide something more than a mere connection to the internet. If you provide email, newsgroups, your own web portal... or any other of your own content, then you are an IAS.
This likely includes all the baby bells, all the cable companies, AOL, MSN, Yahoo, etc... It probably also includes anyone running a mail server, website or usenet server if they allow other people to use that service.
Note that it only says "package of services offered to consumers." It says nothing about charging a fee or being a publicly traded megacompany.
I am not a federal judge. What I say is only what a reasonable human being would think the statute means. As we know, the law is not always interpreted by reasonable human beings... look at that 10 Commandments guy in Alabama for instance... D'oh! He's not a judge anymore though is he?
It is intended to accomplish nada, nothing, zip, nil. It is pre-election hype.
MD5 would be a bad idea since it's optimized to be EASY to compute. For the opt-out list an EXPENSIVE strong hash can be specified. Again, remember how old UNIX crypt(3C) function was deliberately slowed down to prevent this kind of dictionary attack. Solaris manpage still says: "It is based on a one-way encryption algorithm with variations intended (among other things) to frustrate use of hardware implementations of a key search".
Actually, making this function REALLY expensive is a good way to move some $$ from spammers to chip makers and maybe even make spam unprofitable! Update list often enough and change salt values so that before every e-mail is sent an expensive hash has to be actually _computed_ (rather than looked-up in a huge database).
Paul B.
Does this mean /. can sue trolls?
Who Is An ISP?
This reminds me of those "What kind of man reads Playboy?" ads in Playboy.
-kgj
-kgj
Doesn't "consumer" imply "commercial"?
-bZj
.sig
It's sad that Congress can't clear these technical bills, while "negotiating" them, through some of the infotech organizations we have in the US, like ANSI, MIT/Berkeley/Caltech/etc, or Slashdot. They treat technology like Hollywood producers, who don't care about whether the tech they write about works, just whether it sells. As the main buyers are telcos, the ambiguity is a feature, moving competitive barriers against those who can't afford the connected telco lawfirms, which employ the lobbyists who often write the language in the laws. When they get their way, the laws will be copyrighted, and kept secret, until enforced.
--
make install -not war
Once again its a situation of legislation giving the very minimum bare bones of something, and leaving it for the courts to decide what it actually means. It a terrible injustice to legal certainty where test cases are needed to see just what legislation *actually* means
As I have been reading the above comments people have said, "HEY! I am an ISP!" But there are certian legal problems with that statment. If you happen to be under a Terms of Service, like I am, they prohibt such things. So even if you do happen to get yourself declared an ISP then you are opening up yourself for a law suit from your ISP or being disconnected from the internet.
From Cox Communications acceptable use policy: "Servers. You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of any type or any other device, equipment, and/or software providing server-like functionality in connection with the Service, unless expressly authorized by Cox. "
Further invesitagtion revelled simular acceptable use policies. So thus the problem remains -- you claim your an ISP, your connection provider says you must not be, and then your in a quandry.
Some things to think about...
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
The language used does not mention scale, says proprietary content is optional, and does not say there need to be more consumers than 2 (necessary for the plural to be correct).
The language used governs, not some vague notions about what some of Congress might have intended to say. What they said, rather.
What was said seems to cover, just fine, a case like that of a family member who runs the internet hookup and supplies internet access to 2 or more other family members. In practice, singles who never let anyone else use their systems might be blocked, but most of the population having anything to do with running mail services is evidently included in the class permitted to sue. The language used doesn't say the access needs to be continuous either; if you let a couple friends use your system to access the Internet and can prove it, you are offering a package of services to those people, at least for the duration of the time you let them on.
Certainly the spam lobbyists will not have wanted that result, but that is the language. I notice the do-not-spam list business is only a mandate to study it. That was a sneaky language bit they won on. This is one they lost on. Even terms of use contracts with providers that specify only one user at a time don't forbid multiple people using the same machine one after another...and that usage is enough to satisfy the bill's language. Let's hope it gets before an honest judge...
If you are an ISP and want to sue, you can only sue violating spammers. But this bill defines what "spam" and "spammers" are, and it's probably not the definition you or I would use.
According to this new bill, so long as the email has an "opt out" link and is not sent to anyone on the Do Not Spam list, then that email message is not, according to the proposed law, spam.
In other words, nothing will change. And, if you live in California or Virginia, this new bill has less protection than state laws, and will override and _decrease_ your legal protections from spam.
So, the question of whether you fit the definition of an ISP is somewhat moot. Sadly, the law specifically prevents consumers and businesses from suing.
IANAL, but it seems more like a "Pro-Spam" bill than an "Anti Spam" bill to me.
Hopefully the "Do Not Spam" list part of the bill has some teeth.
from what I've gathered the law can also easily be used against grassroots political campaigns through email. E.g. postal address must be present, all headers must be correct (you sent the mail from your laptop through your gateway PC.. well.. you seem to have been forging headers..., think about NAT, ...).
It's full of traps and not in our favor. Was on DemocracyNow (dot org) with a guy from EFF yesterday. Guess most of you freedom fighters here are not very active in informing yourselves let alone fight (err, for?) freedom.
And those who now start elaborate threads about headers and all, I'm shorting the tech fluff down because it's about the POINT I'm trying to make. Discuss the point.
A part of you ("Might be a good idea", "Any law better than none", "Kill the spammers", etc) have fallen for the same propaganda that got people to accept the patriot barbe wire thing cheered at and approved of. They play on your (often righteous) complaints or fears and sneak in a traversy of a solution. Which is not designed in your interest but delivered as such surely it is.
One would think people wisen up, but it appears that "we" as "intellectuals" are actually much more susceptable to this kind of honey smearing. That should be some food for thought.
The devil is always in the details but people seem to not be able to shake off the idea that details == small things.
Well, since I have my linux machine, which is always connected via DSL, set up to also provide dialup ppp service, I am an ISP.. I set this up so that if I'm out and around town and need dialup access, I can dial into my machine and NAT through my DSL connection while also having direct access to resources on my network.. It works very well.. Since I also have accounts on my servers for my friends and family, and all of them can dial in and use this service, even under a more strict interpretation I would be an ISP..
Shame on you!
Or perhaps you are ignorant.
Its very easy to complain that something is "corrupt" or "bad" because you don't understand it.
This is probably the same reason a lot of legislators make such stupid decisions such as banned "master/slave" or pushing for the Fritz/TCPA chip.
It may also include anyone who's enabled Internet Connection sharing under Windows and almost definately includes any closed Wi-Fi networks like Perth's free hobbyist wireless network (despite the fact that there's no bridge to the Internet).
I'd be smug about being an Australian if our tech laws weren't pretty much the same level of crap.
You don't have to be a business to generate spam. All you need is a single mail server.
Are you arguing that your right to operate a personal mail server trumps my right not to receive spam?
Well, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.
So, welcome to the land of politics and the courts. That's how things work around here. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Living in a democracy obliges you to accept the outcome, or keep on fighting for what you believe in and be willing to accept the consequences.
The alternative is to anoint someone to decide what's right and wrong. I don't like that option.
As James Madison argued, the U.S. Constitution is a means to balance conflicting interests to the benefit of the most people most of the time. It isn't a means to determine moral correctness.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Look at pg 47, line 16:
This law kills all the state's remedies that have been developed to provide recipients a way to sue spammers. This law has lower fines. This law frekin' sucks!
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Let's just say, it's not a real ISP when it screws with its customers as much as Michael Jackson does with children.
If you read a law and can't understand it, it is by that very fact a corrupt law.
Not necessarily. You might just be dumb.
The big move these days, spearheaded by content providers such as cable and telecom, is to clearly divide consumers and commercial service providers. This is a business thing, and it has nothing to do with technical matters.
For instance, many of us geeks have run our own web sites and mail servers for several years. Now we're running into increasing problems with ISPs that are blocking incoming and outgoing TCP ports, and entire netblocks getting tagged as consumer class (dynamic blocks) so that some domains can easily block our mail.
From a technical angle, there is no difference between the IP traffic coming from my server in the basement and the largest commercial servers on earth. We both send TCP/IP packets that adhere to an established, open specification. But the difference is that I shouldn't be providing web/mail services. Why? Because I'm competing with someone else, and at least someone could force me to buy a business hosting plan right?
And it seems to me there is an in-between category as well, such as myself.
Out of my house I run a few web sites for money. They are small sites, Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL, by companies that get a few hits a day and a few emails a day. I do this to hone my sysadmin skills and to earn back the cost of the SOHO commercial cable connection. But does that make me an ISP? Should I, if I do business with people in the UK, keep logs for years? Should I install a government spy box? Surely that cannot be the intention?
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Not to be insulting, but you saying you could not understand it onlyproves that you did not devote enough time or concentration to the matter.
What truely makes this law corrupt, is that it was created behind closed door by a Republican only committee. Once they brought out the final bill it was 1300 pages long, and would be voted on in 2 days. How can the politicians lie to our faced and say they are against spam when probably none of them could have read through the whole thing.
Then there's the usual problem that almost all of Congress is lawyers, who write laws that can only be understood by lawyers. When you have to pay someone money to know what your own rights are, something has definitely gone wrong with the system.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" --Lazarus Long
Adding to my parent post: It is very common that people who comment on Slashdot call each other idiots. However, it is likely that almost all of those who read Slashdot are of above average intelligence.
Those who have commented on the parent post have said I don't understand the law! Whoa! Such a big need to find that someone else is less intelligent!
The law is meant to be owned by all of us. If the average people of us cannot understand a law, it should be re-written. Generally, when a law is difficult to understand, those who wrote it don't want it to be understood.
Yep, you are providing a service and there's not much difference between what you do and what any "normal" ISP does. Everyone has help, no one writes all of their software themselves and everyone purchases or leases someone else's equipment somewhere, only the scale changes.
Don't listen to people who would infring on your rights by pidgon hole you into a "consumer" with a machine that is not alowed to do what it can on an internet that was not designed to have master and slave machines. What they are telling you is stupid and outrageous.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...considering that the only thing I depend on from my upstream is six static addresses and my bandwidth. I take care of everything else, DNS included.
By that measure, and the language referenced, I could indeed sue for damages if I chose, since I am running an entire bank of servers and providing "Information Services" to myself and others (my life-mate and a close friend in another state -- he gets in through a VPN tunnel).
However, I find it much more fun simply to block spammers out of our network, and watch them bang their metaphorical heads against our firewall and blocklist. Makes for entertaining reading in the reject logs.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
It is intended to accomplish some hidden purpose.
Was that you that stole ma tin-foil hat?
Aunt Reba, get ma 12-gauge from the closet!
If you're not going to RTFA, at least RTFSummary.
ISP != IAS
Trooooollly trooooollly troll troll.
I think consumer would suggest that it is a commercial service. Just a thought...
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Reasonable is the word that keeps most lawyers in business. The law is not objective, and it should be fairly easy for you to realize that you aren't going to convince a judge that your $200 linux box and $50 cable modem that handles mail for 5 people is not an ISP any more than your kitchen is a restaurant. Now if its a registered business that considers internet access fees as a main source of revenue, it should be clear that it is an ISP. There is a middle ground, there is always a middle ground, and as someone mentioned, what that is will be determined in some respects by lawyers and judges.
I think the reason that only ISPs and businesses can sue is to prevent the courts from getting clogged up with people that want $500 for every spam they get. ISPs are going to vet the attacks and go after the worst offenders. If that has an effect on spam then the law was successful, if not they can always pass a new law.
Congress is, and should be, scared of passing a law that will sabotage an infrastructure they don't fully understand. I think the law is pretty weak, but I think it laid down some important principles and will prove to be a foundation for more specific and effective laws.
As expected here on slashdot, people think that because MSFT has an ISP and they were involved that this is somehow an insidious plot. Answer me this, how, in any possible way, does MSFT or AOL benefit from a weak spam law? How does any ISP or higher tier provider benefit? The groups that stand to benefit are spammers, anti-spam software vendors to some extent, and shady marketers. For the most part legit marketers gave up unsolicited email (AKA acquisition marketing) a while ago.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
Clearly SpamCop is a service provider. No problem there.
Services like Spamcop see many copies of the same spam, so they can aggregate them up to the $1 million limitation. They see enough addresses that they can detect dictionary attacks (an "aggrivated offense"). If they use spam trap addresses, they can detect mining, another aggrevated offense.
Because SpamCop routinely informs spammers that they're spammers, they can even meet the high standard under the "special definition of procure" that places liability on advertisers only if they have "actual knowlege, or by consciously avoiding knowing,whether such person is engaging [in spamming]".
But none of this will stop the coming flood of "legitimate" spam. That, though, can be automatically filtered.
So what we need now is a service like SpamCop that sues spammers aggressively.
Sometimes you win (when you have the dollars) and sometimes you lose (when you do not have the dollars).
Living in a democracy MIGHT oblige you to accept the outcome, but since dollar dependendent outcomes are evidence that you do NOT live in a democracy.... where's the obligation?
The alternative to one dollar/one vote is one person/ one vote... That would be a nice system to try sometime here in the US.
As James Madision would argue the issue, "people" probably only included white landholders, so let's just leave Madison in his coffin.
I see no harm in thinking about how things ought to be.
I provide service to other computers via a router dont I??? just like a local ISP is just a router for the phone company....
well, obviously you're wrong. What do you mean by that cute phrase "dollar dependent outcomes"? Did you learn that from some Volvo-driving academic? Or from some paid A.N.S.W.E.R. shill?
Politicians want your vote more than your money. Or a lobbyist's money. Try voting and try politics before you waste yourself trying to be chic be wading in infantile cyncicsm.
Since you seem willing to ignore everything Madison or any of his peers said if they held one belief held wrong today, I guess we should jsy write you off, too. You've already made one mistake.
Besides, you haven't answer my question. If you think something is right, why should anyone else agree with you? Are you imagining that there are absolute moral imperatives on which everyone agrees and that that forms the basis of government? If not, how do you propose to handle conflicting views?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It is intended to accomplish nada, nothing, zip, nil. It is pre-election hype.
Isn't it a bit early for that? I thought the elections were a year off. A year is plenty of time to see that this law didn't accomplish anything useful.
(I'm not in the USA, so apologies if I've got the date wrong.)
now all i have to do is figure out how to configure sendmail and i'm good to go
As per this comment, copyright infringement notification don't count as spam.
However, if they message you and you aren't carrying any copyrighted material...
If you sort through the poorly structured sentence, it is implying that a five-year-old (note it says "a" not "my") running a quake server could be considered a businessman or at leastt a service provider. It doesn't indicate that the poster's child is running a server though.
Add a 1 to that (15 year old) and that's probably not a bad demographic for a kid with a play quake server.
belive i am the first to say this, but an ISP is an "Internet Service Provider" stupid.
The lunatic is in my head
will someone with an appreciation of Monty Python please mod parent as funny...
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.