"America" is the combo of North America and South America. It's also not the name of a country. The proper name of the country is "The United States of America".
And, yeah, most Canadians hate being called american unless it's clear that the person speaking is talking of the supercontinent as opposed to the lazy name for the country.
You don't actually have to push it all the way to ISS, just close enough that the space shuttle can reach the ISS if it notices that they've lost 5 critical tiles during launch.
In fact, depending on how big the replacement parts are, The shuttle might even be able to fix Hubble, then drop off at the ISS 'on the way home' with a care package -- thus getting in a bit of a two-for-one.
The obvious question is: Just how incompatible are the two orbits? Does the physics make this an feasible idea?
If what you want is no rules, then you have no rules. If I want to build a jail and toss you in it for sending me and my friends spam, then so be it. You said no rules, so it's allowed. Deal with it.
and if they means you get a bit of spam once in a while just think yourself lucky that the internet is so free an open.
Oh, you're one of THOSE you want an anarchy where there are no rules for you but there are rules for me!.
You want to be able to do whatever you want, but when I react to you messing up my computer you cry "NO RULES ON THE INTERNET!"..... but That's a rule! You want me to abide by your rules, but not have any that you have to abide by....
BULLSHIT!
The problem isn't that spam is advertising. You may have something against advertising, but I don't (per se). The problem is that spamming is annoying and (in some cases) even destructive. It doesn't matter what the message is, or who it's from.
It's annoying; It makes it harder for me to communicate with the people I want to communicate with; They send out spam in my name; they zombify friends' computers to further their ends; and they do a host of other annoying and nasty things.
I wouldn't care if they were selling the secret to getting Gerorge W. Bush impeached-- I want them off the net!
So who's forcing you to buy Coke? Try buying concentrated lemon juice and brown sugar and make yourself your own drink.... Way cheaper, almost as convenient and a good bit more healthy.
As for the other things spammers do being otherwise illegal, the anti-spam laws make it easier to go after them in both civil court and criminal because what they do annoys and frustrates soooooo many people.... It's easier to convict someone for a crime when it's specifically described than to charge someone with two, three or four generic causes of action.
In terms of environmental damage caused, I hate junk mail too. Unfortunately, environmental damage isn't an a-priori cause of action in the legal world (the disaster it causes tends to be too far in the future).
That having been said, junk mail doesn't generally get in the way of my day-to-day communications like SPAM does. You have a choice of watching TV (with it's ads) or not. Those ads are delivered with a product that has at least some nominal value. SPAM, on the other hand, piggybacks on a communication form that I'm paying for directly. It also interferes with that communication method. Spammers provide absolutely no value to me, and offer no productive way of saying no.
If you take a look at most anti-spam laws, they don't attack the method. They attack things like misleading subject lines, fraudlent headers, lack of a meaningful response method, hijacking innocent machines, etc. That is where much of the damage of spam is.
I have never spent 10-15 minutes a day dealing with spam, infact I spend more time taking the extra crap that comes with my bank statement down to be recycled, and that's not counting the time it takes to recycle or dispose of the junk.
Some people do spend noticable ammounts of time dealing with SPAM. I have one friend who claims he gets hundreds of spams a day. I've automated the process of complaining about spam sources, and I'm down to about 30 a day (from a high of almost 200). On the other hand, I spend a few hours writing the programs that help automate the spam complaints. Nobody's going to pay me for that.
I admit that 10-15 minutes is on the high end for dealing with spam but there are some surveys indicating that that's not out of touch with some people's reality. It can especially happen for people who don't have good filtering software (or, for various reasons, have a hard time distinguishing spam from possibly revenue-generating emails). I have also had phone calls from less computer-literate friends absolutely at wit's end about all the spam that they were dealing with, and I have lost emails (including possible business deals) in the pile of spam that I've recieved.
When spam starts to interfere with my regular (productive) communication process, it becomes a freedom of speech issue for me.
Yahoo is providing a service to you for free. In return for the free service, you put up with the stuff they do (or not!). You have a choice of whether or not to use yahoo's service. If (and your friends) you don't use yahoo's services, you don't get their advertising.
You don't have to pay for the reception of junk mail. The spammers have to pay the full cost of delivery (this is a self-limiting aspect of junk mail). On the other hand, if it got to the point where many people were spending 10-15 minutes a day dealing with junk mail, there might be laws against it. Most of the cost of spam, on the other hand (lost time, larger servers, and wanted communication burried/lost in the pile of spam) is borne by the recipient. For example, I had to buy more RAM for my home box to handle the resources used by spamassasin and mozilla's anti-virus (it was causing my machine to thrash). I haven't recieved a cheque from the spammers yet.
Also: Yahoo doesn't (as far as we know) hire virus writers and script kiddies to turn random people's machines into zombie bots to transmit their emails. (some) Spammers do.
CO obtained from partially burning wood was used in cars in Europe during World War 2.
Death hazards are relative. In Europe during WW2 you were generally more likely to be killed by a falling bomb (or bomber) than poisoned by a leaking CO tank. Generally, the death rates that were acceptable before and (especially) during WW2 would have people freaking out today.
(among other things, we now have the ability to correlate death rates in the range of 1/10,000 users. Pre WW2, if a CO leak killed someone, the news probably wouldn't make it outside of the local community unless it also killed the people who went in to rescue the original victim. The death(s) would generally be considered a freak event.)
Don't expect carbon-monoxide powered anything in the near future.
Maybe all censorship is not bad.
First they censored the spammers, but I was not a spammer so I did not stand up.
Stopping spammers isn't about censorship.
Consider:
You start yelling at me.
I tell you to stop,
You yell louder,
I plug my ears
You get a megaphone
I lock myself inside my house
You get a full sized sound system
I brick up the windows
You get a stadium -rated sound system
You blow out the neighbour's windows with the sound system
You get arrested for destruction of property
You claim first-ammendment rights.
You get laughted out of court
This is essentially an analogy of the spamming industry.
It doesn't matter what you're saying. Content is irrelevant -- even the fact that communication is (supposedly) occuring (( given that the target recipient does not want to hear you, the existence of communication is questionable )). When it gets annoying, destructive and even expensive for the people who have to deal with your actions, it's just illegal.
Now, the surrealist style has leaked into a lot of spaces we rarely even recognize it as such. Back then it was an almost-entirely new paradigm of art. Think the Mac/Lisa and Xerox's predecessor GUI work vs the DOS shell. Now, we might look at it and yawn (compared to the newest tricks), but back then it was a leap into an entirely new space.
I can't speak for the rest of the Yahoo! boards, but The SCOX board apparently had a reasonably reputation at Groklaw.. The few times I was there I saw a pretty varied mix of opinions. Most seemed to think Darl was full of it, but there were a few pro-sco diehards (this was back when SCO's case wasn't obviously dead in the water).
Picasso did real art, and he did it very well. He was a master (in my world, a master is someone who knows the rules well enough to know when, and how, to break them to good effect). Picasso broke so many rules, and still ended up with good art, that the pretenders who came after him just presumed that there were no rules. (FYI: Picasso did some very good realist art before he got into surrealism)
Many of those Picasso pretenders produced complete garbage that was all but indistinguishable from the scrawlings of a 5-year old. Some of them were probably complete frauds who couldn't draw to save their life, but used 'surrealism' as an excuse to produce garbage with a high price tag. Others would have been otherwise good artists, but didn't understand what Picasso was doing, and so ended up with pale imitations of his work.
There were some who could understand what Picasso was doing, and how he was doing it (more or less). These people were able to properly follow in the style and produce good surrealist art. I get a sense that many of them got swallowed up in a larger pool of garbage.
It being against their religion hasn't stopped a lot of devoutly religious people from committing suicide -- including priests.
It takes a pretty whacked-out state to even consider suicide. That it's against their religioon (and would doom you to eternal damnation or some equivalent) may stop some (and/or help people talk would-be suicides out of it) -- especially if the person is on the edge. For a person who's really far gone, on the other hand, eternal damnation may seem preferable to whatever state they're in (yeah, seriously whacked).
That having been said, there's way too much at stake here for anybody to presume that these two apparent suicides are what they appear to be. An apparent suicide would be a far-too-convenient way to throw the cops off of a murder investigation.
This wouldn't be the first time a suicide was faked.
It's a bit of a question for the scanned documents -- although there is some work in that. On the other hand, there's definitely a lot of work (including cognitive) in doing a transcription of a document.
The artwork for the logo could (at least in theory), be both copyright and trademarked. See you in court -- and, if you'll excuse the pun, you might end up taking it up the ass...
This might a way builders of embedded hardware try to circomvent the GPL since they give you no access to the binaries. (This is the way the embeded hardware builder would explain it, this is open to discussion. )
The GPL kicks in when you distribute the code (in any form), not when a user sees that code as a separate entity. If I give you an embeded product containing GPL software, I am required to give you a copy of the source code.
If this 'hack' worked for the GPL, companies would also be able to distribute machines with embeded versions of Windows CE without paying royalties to MS. Releasing the source code is, effectively, the royalty for distributing GPL code.
The only reason why some companies think that they can distribute GPL code in embeded products without following the GPL requirements is that they don't think that the authors will be able to identify the code as theirs. (and many of these companies have been caught with their pants down).
The FSF promises that any new version of the GPL would be in the same sprit as the earlier versions. If the FSF were to try and make the MS EULA be GPLv3(or 4 or 5) someone would almost surely sue them for breach of contract (and/or trust) and get it rescinded.
I would expect that the GPL version 3 will be backwards compatible with GPL Version 2. As such some parts of Linux may remain under the GPL2 while others are updated to GPL 3 as they are maintained.
Making GPL2 and GPL3 incompatible with each other is the kind of thing I'd expect Microsoft to do.
that the local Batterylife branch made a serious error of judgement when they decided +not+ to send me their product."
This is, of course, giving the company the benefit of the doubt.
It may have been a packaging problem. (not that I'm suggesting anything to their lawyers (ahem!)).
Slashdot Mirror
And, yeah, most Canadians hate being called american unless it's clear that the person speaking is talking of the supercontinent as opposed to the lazy name for the country.
In fact, depending on how big the replacement parts are, The shuttle might even be able to fix Hubble, then drop off at the ISS 'on the way home' with a care package -- thus getting in a bit of a two-for-one.
The obvious question is: Just how incompatible are the two orbits? Does the physics make this an feasible idea?
And if we do catch you, you're going in our jail... Such is the way of life.
If what you want is no rules, then you have no rules. If I want to build a jail and toss you in it for sending me and my friends spam, then so be it. You said no rules, so it's allowed. Deal with it.
Oh, you're one of THOSE you want an anarchy where there are no rules for you but there are rules for me!.
You want to be able to do whatever you want, but when I react to you messing up my computer you cry "NO RULES ON THE INTERNET!"..... but That's a rule! You want me to abide by your rules, but not have any that you have to abide by. ...
BULLSHIT!
It's 12:20 on the west coast. Only another 3 1/2 hours left.
(( On the bright side, though, I did convince a friend that I'd taken a job in Redmond as a shill for (OK: 'Spokesperson') for Microsoft. ))
It's annoying; It makes it harder for me to communicate with the people I want to communicate with; They send out spam in my name; they zombify friends' computers to further their ends; and they do a host of other annoying and nasty things.
I wouldn't care if they were selling the secret to getting Gerorge W. Bush impeached-- I want them off the net!
As for the other things spammers do being otherwise illegal, the anti-spam laws make it easier to go after them in both civil court and criminal because what they do annoys and frustrates soooooo many people. ... It's easier to convict someone for a crime when it's specifically described than to charge someone with two, three or four generic causes of action.
That having been said, junk mail doesn't generally get in the way of my day-to-day communications like SPAM does. You have a choice of watching TV (with it's ads) or not. Those ads are delivered with a product that has at least some nominal value. SPAM, on the other hand, piggybacks on a communication form that I'm paying for directly. It also interferes with that communication method. Spammers provide absolutely no value to me, and offer no productive way of saying no.
If you take a look at most anti-spam laws, they don't attack the method. They attack things like misleading subject lines, fraudlent headers, lack of a meaningful response method, hijacking innocent machines, etc. That is where much of the damage of spam is.
Some people do spend noticable ammounts of time dealing with SPAM. I have one friend who claims he gets hundreds of spams a day. I've automated the process of complaining about spam sources, and I'm down to about 30 a day (from a high of almost 200). On the other hand, I spend a few hours writing the programs that help automate the spam complaints. Nobody's going to pay me for that.
I admit that 10-15 minutes is on the high end for dealing with spam but there are some surveys indicating that that's not out of touch with some people's reality. It can especially happen for people who don't have good filtering software (or, for various reasons, have a hard time distinguishing spam from possibly revenue-generating emails). I have also had phone calls from less computer-literate friends absolutely at wit's end about all the spam that they were dealing with, and I have lost emails (including possible business deals) in the pile of spam that I've recieved.
When spam starts to interfere with my regular (productive) communication process, it becomes a freedom of speech issue for me.
You don't have to pay for the reception of junk mail. The spammers have to pay the full cost of delivery (this is a self-limiting aspect of junk mail). On the other hand, if it got to the point where many people were spending 10-15 minutes a day dealing with junk mail, there might be laws against it. Most of the cost of spam, on the other hand (lost time, larger servers, and wanted communication burried/lost in the pile of spam) is borne by the recipient. For example, I had to buy more RAM for my home box to handle the resources used by spamassasin and mozilla's anti-virus (it was causing my machine to thrash). I haven't recieved a cheque from the spammers yet.
Also: Yahoo doesn't (as far as we know) hire virus writers and script kiddies to turn random people's machines into zombie bots to transmit their emails. (some) Spammers do.
Death hazards are relative. In Europe during WW2 you were generally more likely to be killed by a falling bomb (or bomber) than poisoned by a leaking CO tank. Generally, the death rates that were acceptable before and (especially) during WW2 would have people freaking out today.
(among other things, we now have the ability to correlate death rates in the range of 1/10,000 users. Pre WW2, if a CO leak killed someone, the news probably wouldn't make it outside of the local community unless it also killed the people who went in to rescue the original victim. The death(s) would generally be considered a freak event.)
Don't expect carbon-monoxide powered anything in the near future.
First they censored the spammers, but I was not a spammer so I did not stand up.
Stopping spammers isn't about censorship.
Consider:
- You start yelling at me.
- I tell you to stop,
- You yell louder,
- I plug my ears
- You get a megaphone
- I lock myself inside my house
- You get a full sized sound system
- I brick up the windows
- You get a stadium -rated sound system
- You blow out the neighbour's windows with the sound system
- You get arrested for destruction of property
- You claim first-ammendment rights.
- You get laughted out of court
This is essentially an analogy of the spamming industry.It doesn't matter what you're saying. Content is irrelevant -- even the fact that communication is (supposedly) occuring (( given that the target recipient does not want to hear you, the existence of communication is questionable )). When it gets annoying, destructive and even expensive for the people who have to deal with your actions, it's just illegal.
"For that nice warm feeling inside".
(( Never underestimate the linguistic power of a marketing major. ))
Same thing with Picasso.
I can't speak for the rest of the Yahoo! boards, but The SCOX board apparently had a reasonably reputation at Groklaw.. The few times I was there I saw a pretty varied mix of opinions. Most seemed to think Darl was full of it, but there were a few pro-sco diehards (this was back when SCO's case wasn't obviously dead in the water).
Many of those Picasso pretenders produced complete garbage that was all but indistinguishable from the scrawlings of a 5-year old. Some of them were probably complete frauds who couldn't draw to save their life, but used 'surrealism' as an excuse to produce garbage with a high price tag. Others would have been otherwise good artists, but didn't understand what Picasso was doing, and so ended up with pale imitations of his work.
There were some who could understand what Picasso was doing, and how he was doing it (more or less). These people were able to properly follow in the style and produce good surrealist art. I get a sense that many of them got swallowed up in a larger pool of garbage.
It takes a pretty whacked-out state to even consider suicide. That it's against their religioon (and would doom you to eternal damnation or some equivalent) may stop some (and/or help people talk would-be suicides out of it) -- especially if the person is on the edge. For a person who's really far gone, on the other hand, eternal damnation may seem preferable to whatever state they're in (yeah, seriously whacked).
That having been said, there's way too much at stake here for anybody to presume that these two apparent suicides are what they appear to be. An apparent suicide would be a far-too-convenient way to throw the cops off of a murder investigation.
This wouldn't be the first time a suicide was faked.
It's a bit of a question for the scanned documents -- although there is some work in that. On the other hand, there's definitely a lot of work (including cognitive) in doing a transcription of a document.
The artwork for the logo could (at least in theory), be both copyright and trademarked. See you in court -- and, if you'll excuse the pun, you might end up taking it up the ass...
The GPL kicks in when you distribute the code (in any form), not when a user sees that code as a separate entity. If I give you an embeded product containing GPL software, I am required to give you a copy of the source code.
If this 'hack' worked for the GPL, companies would also be able to distribute machines with embeded versions of Windows CE without paying royalties to MS. Releasing the source code is, effectively, the royalty for distributing GPL code.
The only reason why some companies think that they can distribute GPL code in embeded products without following the GPL requirements is that they don't think that the authors will be able to identify the code as theirs. (and many of these companies have been caught with their pants down).
The FSF promises that any new version of the GPL would be in the same sprit as the earlier versions. If the FSF were to try and make the MS EULA be GPLv3(or 4 or 5) someone would almost surely sue them for breach of contract (and/or trust) and get it rescinded.
Only 31 steps? How trivial.
(like everything else in Windows, this seems to be something of a special case)
Making GPL2 and GPL3 incompatible with each other is the kind of thing I'd expect Microsoft to do.
This is, of course, giving the company the benefit of the doubt.
It may have been a packaging problem. (not that I'm suggesting anything to their lawyers (ahem!)).