People have been writing math-based music since the '20s. In the '50s, it was probably the *most* common form of music written in conservatories -- the Romantic style was considered somewhat atavistic. Thank God those days are gone.
It's called serialism. See Schoenberg, Berio and Boulez.
--Tom, who strangely has a B. Mus. in composition.
Folks, take a look at this. Mr. Shifman hasn't sued anyone for responding to his spam, and I'll wager he never will. He's made baseless threats, referring to non-existent lawyers. That's common among people who feel backed into a corner and don't understand law.
The site is mirrorred on spamflames.com. As the domain reseller for that domain, I also received a legal threat from Mr. Shifman. I have no intention of responding, and don't feel even slightly threatened by it. When I get court papers, I'll take it seriously.
The SpamCon Foundation Law Center has as close to a "prosecution kit" as you're ever going to find. No, it doesn't offer legal advice: Only a lawyer can do that. However, it *does* have court documents from past successful cases, a discussion board to check with other folks on the details, and other info.
But you still have to file, and see the case through to the end. And then collect. Simply put, legal action is difficult. But each and every one of you can do it.
For a while, there was a community project to build PPC-based motherboards from IBM's "open" reference platform known as PowerPC Open Platform, or "POP". Ralph Giles started a mailing list (recently moved to opencores.org), and I built up a Web site at openppc.org. In addition, I created a commercial company to produce the boards. (These sites may be temporarily down -- our data center has had some power problems over the past two days.)
Then, IBM had problems with the new Northbridge design they specified for the board. Not wanting to release a flawed design to the world, they decided not to make the layout files ("Gerbers") available. With only schematics, lack of support from IBM, and waning confidence in the community, the project eventually fizzled.
Years ago, I heard some stories that said you were outspokenly antigay. The story went that you held gays in contempt for religious reasons, resented speculation about your own sexual interests, and endured friction with two allegedly gay actors on the ST:TNG set -- Brent Edwards and Michael Dorn. Note: I never saw substantiation for rumors about your attitude, religion, or the sexual orientation of any cast member. (I'm frankly not enough of a Trek fan to care.:) )
Yet I see here that you said the following regarding homosexuals: "I'm sorry that I don't play ball with your team...but I always cheer for you when I'm in the stands."
Could you clarify your feelings about homosexuality, past and present? Many thanks,
I'm interested in buying inexpensive rural real estate, and I've had pretty good experiences doing research using online resources. (I particularly like United Country (http://www.unitedcountry.com): I've subscribed to their paper catalogs for almost 20 years!)
However, there's one thing I still can't find: Maps that compare average home/acreage prices throughout an area, or (preferably) countrywide. I've tried everything: Census, real estate pro sites... nothing. Can anyone offer some help?
Your point (about an email costing the recipient less than a fax) is valid -- when you look at one email message vs. one fax.
But because the cost of sending is also lower for email, it doesn't make sense to compare them 1:1. Penny-ante spammers regularly send out millions of email messages per incident; few junk faxers send out 1/1,000th of that amount. So a 1:1,000 comparison is more appropriate.
Do 1,000 email messages cost as much as one fax? Demonstrably so. (Remember, you also have to include costs from the NNN recipients who pay per-minute phone charges, the NN recipients who get the spam on their cell phone, and the N recipients calling in from a $1-a-minute hotel phone.) So the total damage per junk spam run is at least as great as per junk fax run.
Incidentally, most spam laws have pegged statutory damages at $50/message or less; the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act pegs the statutory damage for junk faxes at $500 per.
--Tom Geller, suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
Hormel has already addressed this issue, and blessed the use of the word "spamto describe unsolicited email. However, "SPAM" in all caps refers only to the meat product. Read Hormel's statement
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
Some state laws (and, I believe, proposed Federal laws) have made exceptions for cases in which the sender has "a prior relationship" with the recipient. See this link for references.
I think that exception covers all cases you mention above, no?
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator.
I never said lawyers aren't clueful on the whole: On the contrary, I think they get too little respect from the public. However, lawyers aren't well educated about spam. Very few have been exposed to the legal issues involved, and as a result few are prepared to handle spam-related cases. I hope Mr. Sorkin's paper changes that.
--Tom "MasterTroll" Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
I believe spam is something that needs to be fought on several fronts. Technological solutions are certainly important: In fact, I led a panel discussion on that subject at the 1998 ISP Forum (see this link and search for "ISP").
But it's clear that technical solutions alone have a limited effect. Filtering solutions may stop up to 95 percent of the spam, but that doesn't keep it from clobbering those who can't install a filtering system, whether due to lack of ability or lack or resources.
The technical community has been guilty of terrible arrogance in this area. Spam is both a technical and a social problem. If you don't address both causes, you'll never get anywhere. Of course, lots of policy folks don't know squat about technology, and their short-sightedness is just as much of a problem. ("When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.")
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
P.S. Full disclosure: Brightmail is a P.R. client of mine, and I wrote the press release referenced above:). I see systems like Brightmail's as important and worthwhile tools, but not the complete answer.
Startup, by Jerry Kaplan. A 1994 tale about pen-computing venture Go, and how it went through $75MM in capital before burning up -- as told by the CEO (!).
aol.com, by Kara Swisher. If you don't want to assign the whole book, the second chapter (about the company's founding by an alcoholic, eccentric, self-destructive entrepreneur) is worth the price of admission alone.
Good stuff, but not quite as compelling:
Netscape Time, by Jim Clark (with Owen Edwards). A fairly human and not-too-smug account of the company's glory years. (c) 1999, when the stock was still worth something.)
The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, by Alan Deutschman. Written with flair and wit. Really about one specific person, though -- doesn't dwell on bigger insights on the industry.
Two books by Peter Salus: A Quarter Century of UNIX, and Casting the Net (foreword by Vint Cerf!). Excellent for highly technical audiences, next-to-useless for general audiences. Sorry, Peter. (Random fact: I was friends briefly with his daughter when we were in high school. I believe she still works at Linux Magazine.)
Finally, I would require students to go to the "Vintage Computer Festival if you're in the Bay Area. There are other useful resources there (such as the mailing list). There's also the Computer History Museum Center in Moffet Field, near Mountain View.
The so-called "Anti-spamming Act" (HR 1017) was introduced a full month *after* the much better "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001" (HR 95), in an apparent attempt to weaken antispam law.
Goodlatte's copycat "Anti-spamming Act" (HR1017) takes away service providers' rights to enforce their policies: The "Unsolicited Commercial Email" act (HR95) preserves that right..
The "Anti-spamming" act gives spammers free run of your server, until you explicitly tell them to stop. The "UCE" act lets admins proactively keep spam off their system. (Note: Goodlatte's Virginia constituency includes AOL, which has fought hard for the right to spam for several years, and which pushed to defeat last year's HR3113.)
(Both bills allow end recipients to sue, both require valid sender information, both penalize forgery. Both ostensibly mandate opt-out -- i.e., you have to tell the spammer to stop before they're forced to -- but HR 95 allows service providers to supersede that issue by setting their own policies to equal opt-in.)
Don't be fooled. Rep. Goodlatte's "Anti-spamming" bill is a mandate to spam: The "UCE" Act (HR95) is the real thing.
But don't take my word for it. See what others have to say:
Cute idea, but it belies ignorance about how things actually work. LOTS of people already do just what you're saying: I've never heard of ANY making it to the courts, for several reasons:
Court is expensive and time-consuming. If your idea works so well, how many spammers have YOU taken to court?
Before you can even enter the court system, you have to identify the plaintiff. Whoops, there goes more time and expense.
Even if you win, collection is a bear.
It's highly unlikely that the judge will accept receipt of an SMTP banner as constituting a valid contract -- unless that's specifically written into law. In the one place it's implied (Calif. Business and Professions Code 17538.45 (f)(3)(B)), it's still debatable, and never been tried.
Having said this, some people *have* dunned spammers and collected. See this post.
In short: Your idea is an unoriginal fantasy. If I were still a moderator, I'd mark you post down as "inaccurate".
My desk dictionary (Webster's New World, 3rd College Ed.) gives the following definition for "squelch": "The act of suppressing or silencing, especially a crushing retort..." "Quash" is given a stronger definition: "To annihilate, destroy...".
I was thinking the jargon "squelch" (as used in audio technology circles), to eliminate signal output that's below a certain threshhold. Strangely, my dictionary doesn't give that definition.
Anyway, the point is obvious: Slashdot would be well served by having at least one professional editor looking at the text before it goes out.
Slashdot Mirror
- Clean Underwear from Amazon's Target Store
- Ladybug Rain Boots from Amazon's Nordstrom Store
- Pet Socks from Amazon's Urban Outfitters Store
- Puppy Footed One-Pieces for Newborns from Amazon's Old Navy Store
I think that's one hell of an ensemble, there.People have been writing math-based music since the '20s. In the '50s, it was probably the *most* common form of music written in conservatories -- the Romantic style was considered somewhat atavistic. Thank God those days are gone.
It's called serialism. See Schoenberg, Berio and Boulez.
--Tom, who strangely has a B. Mus. in composition.
AC writes:
:)
>I volunteered for the past year full-time in the
>central office of World Esperanto Association
What a coincidence! I volunteered there for six months, 1991-1992. Malgranda mondo, c'u ne?
--Tom, former administrator of openppc.org.
Folks, take a look at this. Mr. Shifman hasn't sued anyone for responding to his spam, and I'll wager he never will. He's made baseless threats, referring to non-existent lawyers. That's common among people who feel backed into a corner and don't understand law.
The site is mirrorred on spamflames.com. As the domain reseller for that domain, I also received a legal threat from Mr. Shifman. I have no intention of responding, and don't feel even slightly threatened by it. When I get court papers, I'll take it seriously.
But you still have to file, and see the case through to the end. And then collect. Simply put, legal action is difficult. But each and every one of you can do it.
Then, IBM had problems with the new Northbridge design they specified for the board. Not wanting to release a flawed design to the world, they decided not to make the layout files ("Gerbers") available. With only schematics, lack of support from IBM, and waning confidence in the community, the project eventually fizzled.
Sic sic transit gloria PPC.
They're not quite the same thing, but disposable email addresses can be used "anonymously" -- and you can throw them out when you're done with them.
--Tom
Years ago, I heard some stories that said you were outspokenly antigay. The story went that you held gays in contempt for religious reasons, resented speculation about your own sexual interests, and endured friction with two allegedly gay actors on the ST:TNG set -- Brent Edwards and Michael Dorn. Note: I never saw substantiation for rumors about your attitude, religion, or the sexual orientation of any cast member. (I'm frankly not enough of a Trek fan to care. :) )
Yet I see here that you said the following regarding homosexuals: "I'm sorry that I don't play ball with your team...but I always cheer for you when I'm in the stands."
Could you clarify your feelings about homosexuality, past and present? Many thanks,
--
I saw it as "Java on Forgecast Dreams On".
:)
--Tom Geller, Executive Director
SpamCon Foundation
However, there's one thing I still can't find: Maps that compare average home/acreage prices throughout an area, or (preferably) countrywide. I've tried everything: Census, real estate pro sites... nothing. Can anyone offer some help?
Thanks,
Tom Geller
Godwin.
--Tom
But because the cost of sending is also lower for email, it doesn't make sense to compare them 1:1. Penny-ante spammers regularly send out millions of email messages per incident; few junk faxers send out 1/1,000th of that amount. So a 1:1,000 comparison is more appropriate.
Do 1,000 email messages cost as much as one fax? Demonstrably so. (Remember, you also have to include costs from the NNN recipients who pay per-minute phone charges, the NN recipients who get the spam on their cell phone, and the N recipients calling in from a $1-a-minute hotel phone.) So the total damage per junk spam run is at least as great as per junk fax run.
Incidentally, most spam laws have pegged statutory damages at $50/message or less; the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act pegs the statutory damage for junk faxes at $500 per.
--Tom Geller, suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
For email, the recipient pays, so email is "no different" from junk faxes (which are already illegal).
However, email is substantially different from telemarketing and direct (paper) mail. Email's cost-shifting nature makes all the difference.
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
I think that exception covers all cases you mention above, no?
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator.
--Tom "MasterTroll" Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
But it's clear that technical solutions alone have a limited effect. Filtering solutions may stop up to 95 percent of the spam, but that doesn't keep it from clobbering those who can't install a filtering system, whether due to lack of ability or lack or resources.
The technical community has been guilty of terrible arrogance in this area. Spam is both a technical and a social problem. If you don't address both causes, you'll never get anywhere. Of course, lots of policy folks don't know squat about technology, and their short-sightedness is just as much of a problem. ("When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.")
--Tom Geller, Suespammers.org Founder and Administrator
P.S. Full disclosure: Brightmail is a P.R. client of mine, and I wrote the press release referenced above :). I see systems like Brightmail's as important and worthwhile tools, but not the complete answer.
- Startup, by Jerry Kaplan. A 1994 tale about pen-computing venture Go, and how it went through $75MM in capital before burning up -- as told by the CEO (!).
- aol.com, by Kara Swisher. If you don't want to assign the whole book, the second chapter (about the company's founding by an alcoholic, eccentric, self-destructive entrepreneur) is worth the price of admission alone.
- Good stuff, but not quite as compelling:
- Netscape Time, by Jim Clark (with Owen Edwards). A fairly human and not-too-smug account of the company's glory years. (c) 1999, when the stock was still worth something.)
- The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, by Alan Deutschman. Written with flair and wit. Really about one specific person, though -- doesn't dwell on bigger insights on the industry.
- High Noon: The Inside Story of Scott McNealy and the Rise of Sun Microsystems, by Karen Southwick. Too adoring. By pure coincidence, I did P.R. work for Sun (after this book was written), and knew some of the folks responsible for making it so... nice.
- Two books by Peter Salus: A Quarter Century of UNIX, and Casting the Net (foreword by Vint Cerf!). Excellent for highly technical audiences, next-to-useless for general audiences. Sorry, Peter. (Random fact: I was friends briefly with his daughter when we were in high school. I believe she still works at Linux Magazine.)
Finally, I would require students to go to the "Vintage Computer Festival if you're in the Bay Area. There are other useful resources there (such as the mailing list). There's also the Computer History Museum Center in Moffet Field, near Mountain View.Good luck with the class! --Tom Geller
The so-called "Anti-spamming Act" (HR 1017) was introduced a full month *after* the much better "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001" (HR 95), in an apparent attempt to weaken antispam law.
Goodlatte's copycat "Anti-spamming Act" (HR1017) takes away service providers' rights to enforce their policies: The "Unsolicited Commercial Email" act (HR95) preserves that right..
The "Anti-spamming" act gives spammers free run of your server, until you explicitly tell them to stop. The "UCE" act lets admins proactively keep spam off their system. (Note: Goodlatte's Virginia constituency includes AOL, which has fought hard for the right to spam for several years, and which pushed to defeat last year's HR3113.)
(Both bills allow end recipients to sue, both require valid sender information, both penalize forgery. Both ostensibly mandate opt-out -- i.e., you have to tell the spammer to stop before they're forced to -- but HR 95 allows service providers to supersede that issue by setting their own policies to equal opt-in.)
Don't be fooled. Rep. Goodlatte's "Anti-spamming" bill is a mandate to spam: The "UCE" Act (HR95) is the real thing.
But don't take my word for it. See what others have to say:
- US legislation pages for The Suespammers Project
- US legislation pages at spamlaws.com
- Suespammers discussion list
--Tom Geller, Founder and Administrator, The Suespammers Project- Court is expensive and time-consuming. If your idea works so well, how many spammers have YOU taken to court?
- Before you can even enter the court system, you have to identify the plaintiff. Whoops, there goes more time and expense.
- Even if you win, collection is a bear.
- It's highly unlikely that the judge will accept receipt of an SMTP banner as constituting a valid contract -- unless that's specifically written into law. In the one place it's implied (Calif. Business and Professions Code 17538.45 (f)(3)(B)), it's still debatable, and never been tried.
Having said this, some people *have* dunned spammers and collected. See this post.In short: Your idea is an unoriginal fantasy. If I were still a moderator, I'd mark you post down as "inaccurate".
--Tom Geller, founder, The Suespammers Project.
My desk dictionary (Webster's New World, 3rd College Ed.) gives the following definition for "squelch": "The act of suppressing or silencing, especially a crushing retort..." "Quash" is given a stronger definition: "To annihilate, destroy...".
I was thinking the jargon "squelch" (as used in audio technology circles), to eliminate signal output that's below a certain threshhold. Strangely, my dictionary doesn't give that definition.
Anyway, the point is obvious: Slashdot would be well served by having at least one professional editor looking at the text before it goes out.
--Tom
--Tom