Slashdot Mirror
IronPort Arms Both Sides In Spam War
securitas writes "We all know about IronPort's recent acquisition of SpamCop. What may not be common knowledge is that IronPort's Senderbase has 'the reputation as the fastest way to send millions of junk e-mail messages' and is popular with spam factories. Founded by two former Microsoft executives - Hotmail's Scott Weiss and ListBot founder Scott Banister - IronPort claims its customers are not spammers but legitimate marketers. Critics say that this is a clear conflict of interest. Playing spam from both sides might be likened to a pharmaceutical company enabling the spread of a disease in order to sell the cure. SpamCop founder Julian Haight - who had to sell the company in order to remain solvent - is quoted as saying of IronPort's anti-spam measures: "I am not sure all its standards are tough enough." The story was originally reported by the New York Times' Saul Hansell. Abbreviated mirror at IHT."
EoA FIRZT PROZZZT!!!!
Just the thing I wanted to hear! (not)
Oh, I'm a Republican
I got a small schling
I like to bomb niggahs
and make a lot o' bling
I got a bunch o' friends
in high up places
They helps me get dem
government graces.
You think I'm smart
I just know who's who
I couldn't run a fruit stand
without the red white & blue
I fancy myself
A brilliant tactician
But neither me nor m'buddies
Could even pass basic trainin'
See, I'm above all that
A fightin' and shootin'
I just say "Sic em!"
Then run the other direction
Don't need no history
Don't need no schoolin'
I got my ideology
To keep me a shootin'
Liberals! Faggots!
Commies and queers!
Socialist hippies
Full o' pussy tears!
I'll drop some crap
about Jesus the Christ
You'll buy it all
and vote for me twice
'Fact, Jesus is comin'!
Real soon, now!
So we gotta prop up Israel
That ol' sacred cow
Propaganda's m'friend
But I calls it "fact"
Even though I don't read
'Cept for Chick tracts
Facts? No! Don't need em here!
We're conservatives! We work on FEAR!
Don't like what we say?
Well FUCK YOU, bud!
We'll shove it down yer throat
and tell ya it's good!
that the same companies who make the speed radars cops use to give out tickes also make radar detectors?
"Voting for the person that beats Bush in 2004. Registered Libertarian"
Either you are actually a registered Democrat... since voting for the only person likely to beat Bush means voting for a left-wing Democrat.
Or, you are deluded into thinking that the Libertarian candidate will get 58% of the vote in November and win, when it will really be more like 2%.
Here is an interesting interview with the CEO of Ironport. He touches on this issue and has an interesting justification for it. The dollard truly is mighty.
GNAASTEE is coming soon
\\\ I HAVE TO MASTURBATE COVERTLY IN PRIVATE
/C \ I'D BEAT OFF IN PUBLIC (HIDING BEHIND
/__/\\ BUSHES AND SIGNS) BUT I'M A SCREAMER
(oO)
\\__//
__> U<__
_\/_ Mparre
Though I am interested as to why you imagine that any candidate would need 58% of the vote to win.
Isn't that the correct phrase for Trolls?
Allow me to smash the fallacy of this argument one last time. All you self-correcting market folk, the market is not sentient, it doesn't think, display cognitive abilities, or even self-awareness. It is completely at the mercy of the thinking, scheming, self-aware and cognitively gifted operators who routinely abuse those who naively assign these qualitites to the market. The market has not been unfettered since the last crop of deceitful, thinking operators made a complete hash of the market. That problem was solved by the government regulating aspects of the market.
The utopian ideal of a self-correcting market is unattainable, because to attain it, you need to depend on another utopian ideal, rational consumers. Well we haven;t got rational consumers, and it is unlikely that we ever will have a homogenous group of rational consumers. This always opens the market to abuse by unethical vendors, consumers, and middlemen. Of these the biggest criminals are those who continue to ascribe traits to the market which itr patently cannot have, particularly in the face of overwhelming evidence that their assertions have never historically worked out, and (for good reason) have not been tried again.
Like any other ideal, or postulate, Adam Smith's ideas don;t work verbatim in the real world. Adam Smith's version of capitalism is no more viable than Marx's vision of communism. Adam Smith's idea has, as it's sole feature, the fact that the real world implementation of his ideals end up working out better than the real world implementations of Marx, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. But this is not prima facie evidence that Adam Smith's unabridged ideas are some type of gospel fact. Particularly in view of the fact that we have had far closer implementations of Adam Smith's ideas, and they have led directly to Railroad Barons and their abuses, and the Great Depression.
Even the political right, which often is the source of this mantra, does not naively leave the market to self-correct. When Ronald Reagan's administration was faced with a floundering economy, they didn't utter incantations over Adam Smith's grave, or invite Ayn Rand to minister in the National Cathedral. Nope, they helped the market along, they artificially created a demand for the market to fulfill. As the market returned to health, the need for that artifice was reduced. That this was necessary is manifest. Consider inflation, costs of oil, GNP, at the beginning and end of the Reagan years. Can anyone say that the governments actions in pushing the market did not have a beneficial effect? You can argue that you would rather have seen the money go elsewhere than holes in N. Dakota, but the need was real, and the effect of the governments 'meddling' in the market was equally real.
This is a real world we live in, ideals have their place, but they cannot usurp reality. Idealists have allways tried to make reality fit their nice little theories. At the small end of the scale, the idealist gets a rude awakeing. At the largest end of the scale, millions of kulaks in the Ukraine starve, or millions of innocents are shepherded into box cars and slaughtered like buffalo.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
"Which is why I support the Green Party."
Voting for the Greens produces the undesired effect, though: a vote for the Green party is a vote for Bush (or a vote for whatever conservative is running in whatever race) because every time, it subtracts one vote from the left/liberal/Democrats.
Ralph Nader was nothing but a spoiler who made sure Gore would not win. He then covers it with the lie that "Bush and Gore were all the same" which everyone knows is hawgwash.
"United we stand, divided we fall" really works, especially when it comes to the left side of the spectrum opposed to Bush.
So, remember, when you check Green on that ballot, you are making Karl Rove smile. If you check Dean (or whomever) you are giving Rove heartburn.
...As 2000 showed us, you only need to convince 5 of the 9 members of the SC to select a President...
Those 5 of 9 said: let the actual vote totals in Florida go through. That is all. They did not select Bush: The voters of Florida did. Gore had already lost. He even lost the exact count demanded of the Supreme Court (which was done after the fact, after Gore lost the case, to see if it would have made a difference: it did not).
i submitted that story weeks ago... the text of the story was so similar i seriously thought it was mine. but i guess securitas had more links than i did.
anyhow, ironport is not doing anything illegal according to any federal or state laws i'm aware of. as for ethics? it's a corporation, come on. remember when bertelsmann was suing napster which it had just purchased? or when fox news tried to sue the simpsons? or the krupp family selling weapons to every power in europe before and during ww1?
better yet look at our own federal government - "checks and balances" seems to have gotten a little out of hand.
the larger an entity the more likely you'll have conflicts of interest and in our world business and government entities are only getting larger, not smaller.
my book
Respecting states rights by not overruling the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, ensuring that the voters of Florida weren't disenfranchised, those sort of things would have interfered with their selection.
Here, let me help you:
Amendment XX, Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Like you, the SC decided to ignore the fact that the Constitution had been specifically, explicitly amended to deal with issues of succession, with a mandated path of action that never involved the SC deciding who won an election and ending legitimate recounts.
"never involved the SC deciding who won an election and ending legitimate recounts"
The Florida voters had already decided who won the election, and the legitimate recounts had already occured. The voters decided. The SC did not. The SC decided, however, to let the will of the voters stand, and reject the Florida court's illegal attempt to disenfranchise all of the voters by changing the rules after the fact in order to get the desired result.
Next....
Amendment XX, Section 3? It had not gone to Congress yet.
"Like you, the SC decided to ignore the fact that the Constitution had been specifically, explicitly amended to deal with issues of succession"
No, the SC was aware of the fact that the election had already occured, and the results were known.
Face it. Gore lost the election. You can't rewrite history.
Part of the SC "reasoning" was that if they didn't make their decision right away, if they actually allowed a valid recount, if they went to the trouble of ensuring Floridians weren't disenfranchised, the country would be left in the lurch. If they'd have ever read the Constitution, they'd have realized that that was a steaming load.
I don't understand why you ACs are so upset: your candidate is now the Selected President*.
"ordered recounts. Therefore there was no final, valid count of the Florida votes"
There had been valid counts up to this point, each of them valid. The recount desired by that FSC was past the legal deadline for such counts: it was illegal. Those who made it that way probably wanted to prevent what happened: utterly frivolous lawsuits designed to drag out the process. So they set a deadline. The FSC decided to rewrite the law and ignore it.
Regardless, this count the FSC wanted? It was checked after the fact. Gore lost it.
"Part of the SC "reasoning" was that if they didn't make their decision right away, if they actually allowed a valid recount,"
That is a lie. The SC knew a valid recount had already occured.
"they went to the trouble of ensuring Floridians weren't disenfranchised"
That is exactly what the US SC did. They made sure that the Florida court's legislating-on-the-fly did not disenfranchise the voters.
" don't understand why you ACs are so upset: your candidate is now the Selected President*. "
the * means selected by the voters through the usual election process. Yes, he was elected, no matter what the whining sore losers say. Bush was selected the same way Clinton was.
"If they'd have ever read the Constitution,"
They did, hence their decision. However, about 3 of the US Supreme Court justices decided to ignore the Constitution, and the will of the Florida voters, and try to overturn the election. Thankfully, a majority sided with the voters, the Constitution, and the law.
As a result, the elected president was inaugurated. Get used to the idea that sometimes national elections don't turn out the way you want them to: not every voter agrees with you.
The SC decided to overrule the Florida Supreme Court ignoring the fact that issues like this are States issues. They overrode the sovereignty of the state of Florida. The selected a President without knowing the actual count, thus invalidating all the votes in Florida.
The * means that W will have always have an asterisk next to his name in history books, because he is the only Selected President*, chosen by the SC. I would have thought that obvious by the context. Every other President got there through Constitutional proper methods.