Ignoring the problem doesn't fix it. Just as filtering spam even at 100% does not fix the problem. Also many legitimate phone calls are made with out an ID, so those would also be ignored.
The point is these calls should not be allowed in the first place.
Copyright has nothing to do with the public good. Otherwise it would be limited to 10 years for royalties this would allow the artist to make money and benefit public interest. It would be a win win.
The only alternative is to defy the laws. If enough people do so, then either the laws will be repealed, or there will be too many people breaking the law it'll be untenable to prosecute everyone.
The fact that copyright still exists shows that the law does not bend to the will of the people. However the breaking of these laws fuels the advance of new technology such as bit-torrent, tor and other secure peer2peer technologies.
It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.
Like what exactly?
A very large percentage of people commit copyright infringement, yet the law still stands. Proving the the will of the people has no effect on what laws should or should not exist.
I wish these sites could all merge to form a network and provide an API so that I could host my own profile and pages but still access and share content across from users of facebook, myspace. You could have just one social profile instead of being registered to multiple sites.
That would be sort of a holy grail solution but I can't see it happening any time soon.
I was actually pointing out a flaw in the system. It seems to me the only real solution is to just have good filtering systems in place.
Another way is to have a catch-all domain and when you register use addresses like slashdot@catch-all.com, youtube@catch-all.com which you can then block as needed. However this quickly becomes a nightmare when somebody runs a dictionary attack on your domain, so you disable catch-all then you can't remember what addresses are actually in use ect and it turns to shit.
Spam filtering utilising multiple reputable blacklists such as spamhaus, barracuda, spamcop ect. Still seems the best solution, or having an obscure address that's only given to a few trusted individuals.
I believe it has been standard practice that images taken in a public place are the property of the photographer. They didn't break into a morgue and take the photos. These were taken on a public highway. They are very graphic, but I feel they could serve a great purpose as awareness to teenagers about how they drive. In that context, does the good of these images outweigh the family's "right to privacy" on a public road? I understand the pain these images could cause, but they should be able to avoid seeing them. The people e-mailing these photos to them should get prosecuted though.
Yes, the issue here is not the existence of the photos but the person who emailed them to the farther. One has to question their mentality.
I wish I hadn't but that's my own fault for requesting the image. I've seen plenty of stuff like that before but it seems worse when there's a name to go with it.
We see this with the internet, phone networks even the postal service. What you have to ask is "What is the value of Freedom" personally I cannot attach a pricetag to freedom, so the occasional abuse is a very small price to pay.
Same goes for the Australian "Do Not Call" list. Religious groups, charities and politicians are exempt. At least a telemarketer might have usefull information on a new product.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring the problem doesn't fix it. Just as filtering spam even at 100% does not fix the problem. Also many legitimate phone calls are made with out an ID, so those would also be ignored.
The point is these calls should not be allowed in the first place.
Copyright has nothing to do with the public good. Otherwise it would be limited to 10 years for royalties this would allow the artist to make money and benefit public interest. It would be a win win.
The current system is all about greed.
He cannot be serious.
At least I don't spell the colour grey incorrectly.
Have a nice day.
That's why I use the word valid.
What if they hide their number from caller id?
Also it's not as simple as simply not answering because they have still disturbed me.
If you can spell nullification your too smart to be on a jury. Juries are made up of people to stupid to think of a reason to get out of jury duty.
The only alternative is to defy the laws. If enough people do so, then either the laws will be repealed, or there will be too many people breaking the law it'll be untenable to prosecute everyone.
The fact that copyright still exists shows that the law does not bend to the will of the people. However the breaking of these laws fuels the advance of new technology such as bit-torrent, tor and other secure peer2peer technologies.
Allot of good comes from breaking laws.
It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.
Like what exactly?
A very large percentage of people commit copyright infringement, yet the law still stands. Proving the the will of the people has no effect on what laws should or should not exist.
/. isn't a social networking site. It's a peer spellchecker for people with too much free tyme.
My ex uses a rather unique username, I just found her profile on sites I didn't know existed. Thanks.
They could just register firstnamelastname.com and put a page with intro and legit contacts.
I wish these sites could all merge to form a network and provide an API so that I could host my own profile and pages but still access and share content across from users of facebook, myspace. You could have just one social profile instead of being registered to multiple sites.
That would be sort of a holy grail solution but I can't see it happening any time soon.
So because many consumers are idiots, that makes it okay for marketers to annoy us all?
I never said that.
I was actually pointing out a flaw in the system. It seems to me the only real solution is to just have good filtering systems in place.
Another way is to have a catch-all domain and when you register use addresses like slashdot@catch-all.com, youtube@catch-all.com which you can then block as needed. However this quickly becomes a nightmare when somebody runs a dictionary attack on your domain, so you disable catch-all then you can't remember what addresses are actually in use ect and it turns to shit.
Spam filtering utilising multiple reputable blacklists such as spamhaus, barracuda, spamcop ect. Still seems the best solution, or having an obscure address that's only given to a few trusted individuals.
I think people should have the right not to see those photo's if they wish.
I believe it has been standard practice that images taken in a public place are the property of the photographer. They didn't break into a morgue and take the photos. These were taken on a public highway. They are very graphic, but I feel they could serve a great purpose as awareness to teenagers about how they drive. In that context, does the good of these images outweigh the family's "right to privacy" on a public road? I understand the pain these images could cause, but they should be able to avoid seeing them. The people e-mailing these photos to them should get prosecuted though.
Yes, the issue here is not the existence of the photos but the person who emailed them to the farther. One has to question their mentality.
Don't click the link!
Problem solved.
I wish I hadn't but that's my own fault for requesting the image.
I've seen plenty of stuff like that before but it seems worse when there's a name to go with it.
If it can be abused it will be abused.
We see this with the internet, phone networks even the postal service. What you have to ask is "What is the value of Freedom" personally I cannot attach a pricetag to freedom, so the occasional abuse is a very small price to pay.
hurah!!
Shhhh, don't tell them there's more to the world. They might want to visit us.
Because no spammer would ever know this trick!
dbuzzard+slashdot@gmail.com can you guess my gmail address?
If consumers where smart individuals marketers would not exist.
Same goes for the Australian "Do Not Call" list. Religious groups, charities and politicians are exempt. At least a telemarketer might have usefull information on a new product.
Altho being invalid doesn't mean they won't be accepted.