Google Says Spam Volumes On the Rise

alphadogg writes "Despite security researchers' efforts to cut spam down to size, it just keeps growing back. The volume of unsolicited email in the first quarter was around 6 percent higher than a year earlier, according to Google's e-mail filtering division Postini. Security researchers have won a few significant battles against the spammers in the last year, first against those hosting the spammers' control systems, and later against the control systems themselves, but they will have to change tactics again if they want to win the war. In the first half of last year, security researchers concentrated their efforts on identifying the ISPs or hosting companies that allowed command-and-control servers to operate, and shutting these botnet purveyors down. The success of that tactic was short-lived, however."

Comments

i am for the legalization of marijuana

[circletimessquare]

also hallucinogens like lsd, psilocybin, etc

basically, these drugs should be legal:

1. highly addictive but noninebriating (nicotine, etc)
2. nonaddictive but highly inebriating (lsd, etc)
3. mildly to moderately addictive and mildly to moderately inebriating (alcohol, marijuana etc)

these drugs should never be legal:

4. highly addictive AND highly inebriating

why? because drugs like this (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc) means your normal thoughts are replaced by a zombielike monomania that puts you in a stupor in which you cannot hold a job and/ or maintain a relationship

then you become a ward of the state, and society has to take care of you. this is the point at which society has every right to stop you from using a drug: unlike all statements to the contrary, drug use is obviously NOT a personal choice that effects no one else: society have to take care of the homeless and foodless drug addicts. this gives us the additional right to (attempt) to control the distribution of substances that zombify, to not completely end the distribution, but at least keep it low grade

why? simply because exposure to some substances, like heroin/ meth/ coke, simply means you create more zombies. that is, unbridled distribution leads to more demand: use metastasizes. yes, some will alwyas bet the drugs they want, but apart from these hardcore types hellbent on personal destruction, there's a whole class of potential/ existing users who would not exist if they simply were never exposed to these drugs

yes: the drug war has plenty of negatives, like the creation of violence, mafia, untrustworthy supply, avoidant behavior by addicts, etc. and for a lot of drugs, these prohibition type effects argue for legalization. however, some few drugs are so viral (in that low grade social exposure can lead to addiction and zombiehood) that, even with all of the negative prohibition effects you and i understand, the spread of those highly addictive/ highly inebriating drugs is STILL worse in terms of destroyed lives than prohibition