purposeful anonymous commentary, e.g., anonymous blogs, are a totally different subject and should be preserved.
This seems somewhat convenient and smells of hypocrisy. Of course it is a different issue. I just find it somewhat ironic that you _purposefully_ conclude with that remark.
The Problems with Unwanted photo's on the Internet:
Employers, divorce lawyers and other miscreants just need an excuse to make your life difficult. For example, you happen to be in the same picture with a criminal, then you are automatically tagged and associated with a criminal. Don't under-judge how unfair and unreasonable people can be.
Associating your face and your name with unwanted adjectives (tags), like let's say "alcoholic". Of course libel law can deal with this, but it is anything but cheap or easy for the average person to deal with.
And I can imagine getting your image off the Internet is about as easy as the MPAA stopping people from downloading some rather lame movies.
I don't think there are any solutions for this. If your boss doesn't think you have the right "image" for the company based on something an ex-boyfriend uploaded to YouTube, then maybe it's better off you don't work for that type of company. Of course my high moral standards have never made me rich. It is however a thought.
The fact is, you haven't proven that a hidden partition cannot work. You have not proven your argument. You side-stepped it by pointing out social problems with the mass media. You have used rhetoric and flamboyant language to try and defend yourself.
Recap: "Some people have recommended to you TrueCrypt in hidden volume mode. This is bogus. I'll explain that if you want."
You can flame me if you wish. At least admit to yourself that you never answered the question. This topic is about Forensics, not the legal system.
There are residual electrical charges left over from the areas that are over-written, on the periphery of where the read/write head is designed to go. Those are the areas that I was referring too.
Wiping the disk (even numerous times) will not erase all the data. If you take a disk apart (in a clean room) you can use special HDD readers to read the electrical states of the areas that were not touched during the erasing. I read an article about this some years ago. Sorry I can't find a link for it.
It's really a question of probability and how much useful data can be found, as well as how much effort and resources people (like law enforcement) are willing to allocate.
The tools in the article can also be used by businesses and governments, etc to make it more difficult for hackers to get information like credit card numbers. But somehow I doubt if I could trust a bureaucracy to me anything more than lame.
I think it's more an issue of _governments_ rather than land owners. And it's not so much as having control over what gets transmitted, as it is over having a piece of the economic pie.
Since the First Nations of Manitoba are making this claim, it would appear logical that they would deal with the spectrum in their own area. Airwaves (sound waves for example) are not localized (think of your neighbor who blares music in the middle of the night). Also think of giving licenses to local radio stations. Those stations get to transmit in their local area, and the people in that area generally have some say into what type of licenses are given out (i.e. people may protest having another Classic Rock station). With this issue the Indians don't really care _what_ gets transmitted, they just want some royalties for the use of their airwaves. On the larger scale, think of satellite radio.
It's a fairly abstract notion, trying to control and exploit (and politicize) the products of quantum physics. I think the point is, if the government of Manitoba can make money off the airwaves (through licensing, taxing etc) then the Indians want to be a part of that, similar to how First Nations people often get royalties off of other natural resources.
The argument of these airwaves over a specific piece of land is the real intellectual and legal hurdle. It would be interesting to see how this is argued out it the political sphere, and possibly the courts. I never made claims saying that I agree with their arguments, and the specific details of how they are doing this (taxing each signal) is certainly bizarre and will not make them any friends.
But I am not surprised that they would try to take advantage of something that they feel (or at least claim) that they own. The government of Canada claims ownership over airwaves (through licensing etc) in the geographic area of Canada (to put it simply), and so the Indians appear to be making the same claim (in this case in Manitoba).
My point was about how people (esp. governments and industry) in general think of the electo-magnetic spectrum. Just about anything can be given a legal status, commodified and sold these days. The RIAA doesn't have a commodity on this notion (or the CRIA for that matter).
If governments can make money off the spectrum then why not so-called "First Nation" governments? It really boils down to how much legal and economic authority Indians should have. And it deals with the ambiguity of a people who both want to claim their individuality and distinction from the rest of society, and still be apart of that society, especially when it comes to exploiting natural resources. It's pretty much politics as usual. Seems like the typical having-your-cake-and-eating-it-to mentality.
Q: Should sex offenders continue to be punished after they have served there sentences? A: Probably not. It doesn't help them adjust to society and may cause more harm than good. If they are dangerous, then just keep them in jail. Companies should not encourage bad behavior.
Q: Can Web site owners accurately determine who is a sex offender? A: If the sex offender gave accurate information when signing up, then probably most of the time. Otherwise these private policing policies are just marketing hype.
Q: Aren't Sex offenders too dangerous to be taken lightly? A: It's all about FUD and marketing. There is no one standard definition of sex offender, and laws differ within states and countries. The peeing-in-the-park sex offender is but one example. I'm sure there are people who would like Bill Clinton labeled as a sex offender.
Q: Can't private sites do what they want? A: Pretty much. I (and other's here) are just pointing out how stupid these large companies can be. It's another example of (apparently) uneducated business people and politicians taking a rather complicated social issue and offering simple-minded solutions.
Q: So what can be done? A: Stay smart and keep educated, and pass this knowledge onto your children. If you can't rely on yourself, then don't expect easy solutions from other people.
There have been a few people who have called my post FUD.
First off, the use of rhetorical and literary devices does not constitute FUD. They can emphasize a point of view and make a statement or idea stand out. I'm sure/'ers are educated enough to both understand this and appreciate this. If I thought/'ers weren't (capable of this) then I assure you I would have worded the article differently. The use of a Science Fiction movie as a metaphor for reality should be obvious in this regard. BTW, I was actually thinking of The Truman Show, but in my enthusiasm to post (my first post, and it got accepted... woohoo!), I let that mistake slip through (my bad).
Somebody also had exception to my use of the word "spyware" for describing Vista Parental Controls. While not in the conventional sense is this spyware; this tool does allow parents to see what Web sites there children view, etc. In this regard (and keeping with the theme of the article) I will stand by this statement. And yes I realize that guns don't kill people, and technologies can be used for good, but that obviously wasn't the premise of the article.
I could very well have made the article sound more dry ("dull and lifeless" - WordWeb), but I wanted to echo the sentiments of what I felt like growing up with old-world over-protective parents. I certainly wouldn't want to grow up with over-protective parents in this day and age.
Last Thoughts: These laws and technologies will never make good parents be bad, but they will enable bad parents to be do even more harm.
In hindsight it is easy for me to see the children I grew up with who have had over-protective parents. Many of them now have criminal records (nothing serious like murder, etc as far as I know). I don't keep in touch with them anymore. I have seen the "control-freak" (for want of a better word) parents control their kids to the point of neurosis.
I think we all want kids to be safe. Taking simple and reactionary solutions usually doesn't work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequenc es. Ask yourself how many politicians have done indepth studies of the Internet or the Social Sciences before passing laws. I personally have had formal and informal education in both the social sciences and IT. I think my opinion is worth something. I just thought I might share it.
There is an easy solution to cyberwarfare. Just don't keep important parts of your information infrastructure connected to the Internet; and always have offline backups. If people (especially businesses and government) rely too heavily on one medium (like the Internet) then it will become an obvious target. If worse came to worse, we could always just pull the plug. If your main line of business is related to the Internet, then you need to think of contingencies, like at the very least having VPNs for your customers/clients to use.
If people, businesses, governments, or armies cannot function without the Internet, then things have gone to far. I do however believe that the cyberwarefare concept is more hyperbole than a real threat. If I couldn't read Slashdot because of some Chinese government DoS attack, it would be sad for me, but it would not be the end of the world. And remember: the Internet as it is was designed for redundancy and routing around communication problems.
On second thought. I do see the humour and irony in that piece. I can only presume this person has probably read some of the same anti-FOSS BS that I remember reading. Otherwise, I wander what US politician could have posted under "Anonymous Coward":)
I suppose that's why it's rated as flamebait. He's more than likely just trying to get a reaction (no matter what his/her actual beliefs are). It's a lame form of sarcasm if that's what it was intended to be. BTW I HAVE read about US politicians saying they wanted laws against FOSS because it supposedly hearts the US capitalist economy.
This sounds like vdsl (which allows about 80mb/sec bandwidth, with most of the bandwidth going to the video stream). My apartment building recently got vdsl, the advantages are that there is no need for every apartment wanting satellite TV to have to setup a satellite dish (it's not allowed here anyway). Also, we can get full speed dsl service without having to worry about line quality or being close to a Central Office. All the data is piped into the building through fiber optic cable, while using the existing cable infrastructure of the building to carry the signals to the individual apartment units.
For every argument made against irrationality, there will always be irrational arguments made to contest the rational. There is no way of winning against the irrational. So it goes. Religion will always win so long as the human mind is irrational.
It's a nice change to see a news article about children being intelligent and using critical thinking skills. I am only sorry that this is considered news.
If Linux was marketed as aggressively as Windows, it would be a different story. As it is, Linux doesn't come pre-installed as THE default operating, nor does Linux have the Rolling Stones doing commercials for it, or countless articles about it in consumer friendly magazines. Linux does not have lobbyists or sales people pushing it like Microsoft has. It's really no surprise Linux is not that popular with the average person.
-Google does have a quasi-monopoly, in the sense that a lot of (most?) other search engines contract with Google for search results, and none have come to the same quality as Google, hence if you want an accurate search result you "google" for it
-I'm arguing that the employment market rewards cheating (I think most management text books would agree, but that is another subject). You can't really cheat with a successful business model (although you can steal people's ideas)
-and I said "ideally"... ideals are hard to come by and not always practical. In essence Google is not being net-neutral by what it is doing (discriminating against certain types of businesses). It is an academic point. I could always run my own search spider or use http://www.yacy.net/yacy/Download.html if I wanted more neutrality... but those options of course require more work
Your points are well taken. I myself will continue to use Google.
It's really about net neutrality. Google should ideally just let ads through without (artificial) moral or political interference.
It will make cheating a little more difficult, and make the cheaters be a little more creative. I don't really see the moral justification; cheaters lose out on a learning experience, and essay writers lose out on jobs. Overall GPA has nothing to do with overall career success. In the business world, cheaters are the ones who usually win. I've personally seen cheaters social-network themselves into leadership positions while people who actually spend their time being productive and efficient get treated like losers. Google cannot change reality.
Puts a whole knew meaning to the term "Ignorance is not an excuse"
At any rate... Everybody should know by now that the intertube is a pornucopia of terrorists, pirates, sexual deviants, and spam monkeys. That's why we need a universal RIAA, MPAA and WIPO sanctioned international ID for Intertube users; so that we can easily monitor and track down Intertube abusers like peace frogs and 420 freaks. Do it for the children.
Interesting. But sounds more like FUD than reality. Using proxies, darknets, and just ordinary Web sites (with obfuscated messages) is more practical. I don't really believe you are serious, but kudos's for an interesting idea.
Sometimes the simplest solutions work best. OCR detection and Bayesian filtering will always be a cat and mouse game. I used to bounce spam, but stopped that when botnets became the main conduits.
This may be a bit redundant for the type of people who read Slashdot, but I thought I'd share my views anyway. These are some of the techniques (suggestions) I use to avoid spam: -receive email from white lists only (where applicable of course, like personal accounts intended for friends only) -turn off HTML features in email clients (Web browser features in email clients are bloatware IMHO) -use the IMAP protocol to receive emails and set the your client to download headers only -never use your _main_ ISP email account (it's generally hard/impossible to change without dropping your ISP) -treat email accounts like passwords (think of them as being disposable and easily changed) -if you need a publicly displayed email address, use the same techniques that spammers use to avoid OCR detection, robots, etc (learn from the pro's, know thy enemy, etc)
And of course the more obvious solutions: -use spam filtering programs -virus check incoming emails -never open attachments, reply, "unsubscribe", or click on anything, or go to any URL/link in a spam message
If I wracked my brain I could probably think of a lot of other methods to avoid spam (like using email clients in sandboxes/virtual machines to try and avoid zero-day exploits). Of course if you use a "free" email account like Hotmail much of the filtering is already done at the server level, and generally you get what you pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
purposeful anonymous commentary, e.g., anonymous blogs, are a totally different subject and should be preserved.
:)
This seems somewhat convenient and smells of hypocrisy. Of course it is a different issue. I just find it somewhat ironic that you _purposefully_ conclude with that remark.
It sticks out like a sore thumb
The Problems with Unwanted photo's on the Internet:
Employers, divorce lawyers and other miscreants just need an excuse to make your life difficult. For example, you happen to be in the same picture with a criminal, then you are automatically tagged and associated with a criminal. Don't under-judge how unfair and unreasonable people can be.
Associating your face and your name with unwanted adjectives (tags), like let's say "alcoholic". Of course libel law can deal with this, but it is anything but cheap or easy for the average person to deal with.
And I can imagine getting your image off the Internet is about as easy as the MPAA stopping people from downloading some rather lame movies.
I don't think there are any solutions for this. If your boss doesn't think you have the right "image" for the company based on something an ex-boyfriend uploaded to YouTube, then maybe it's better off you don't work for that type of company. Of course my high moral standards have never made me rich. It is however a thought.
I'll add to that. The topic is about forensics, and the thread is about crypto. The legal system and mass media is a bit of a red herring.
The fact is, you haven't proven that a hidden partition cannot work. You have not proven your argument. You side-stepped it by pointing out social problems with the mass media. You have used rhetoric and flamboyant language to try and defend yourself.
Recap:
"Some people have recommended to you TrueCrypt in hidden volume mode. This is bogus. I'll explain that if you want."
You can flame me if you wish. At least admit to yourself that you never answered the question. This topic is about Forensics, not the legal system.
There are residual electrical charges left over from the areas that are over-written, on the
periphery of where the read/write head is designed to go. Those are the areas that I was referring too.
At any rate, while trying to find that article, I did come up with an interesting find on erasing HDD's:
http://www.gcn.com/print/26_09/43577-1.html
Wiping the disk (even numerous times) will not erase all the data. If you take a disk apart (in a clean room) you can use special HDD readers to read the electrical states of the areas that were not touched during the erasing. I read an article about this some years ago. Sorry I can't find a link for it.
It's really a question of probability and how much useful data can be found, as well as how much effort and resources people (like law enforcement) are willing to allocate.
The tools in the article can also be used by businesses and governments, etc to make it more difficult for hackers to get information like credit card numbers. But somehow I doubt if I could trust a bureaucracy to me anything more than lame.
Good point.
I think it's more an issue of _governments_ rather than land owners. And it's not so much as having control over what gets transmitted, as it is over having a piece of the economic pie.
Since the First Nations of Manitoba are making this claim, it would appear logical that they would deal with the spectrum in their own area. Airwaves (sound waves for example) are not localized (think of your neighbor who blares music in the middle of the night). Also think of giving licenses to local radio stations. Those stations get to transmit in their local area, and the people in that area generally have some say into what type of licenses are given out (i.e. people may protest having another Classic Rock station). With this issue the Indians don't really care _what_ gets transmitted, they just want some royalties for the use of their airwaves. On the larger scale, think of satellite radio.
It's a fairly abstract notion, trying to control and exploit (and politicize) the products of quantum physics. I think the point is, if the government of Manitoba can make money off the airwaves (through licensing, taxing etc) then the Indians want to be a part of that, similar to how First Nations people often get royalties off of other natural resources.
The argument of these airwaves over a specific piece of land is the real intellectual and legal hurdle. It would be interesting to see how this is argued out it the political sphere, and possibly the courts. I never made claims saying that I agree with their arguments, and the specific details of how they are doing this (taxing each signal) is certainly bizarre and will not make them any friends.
But I am not surprised that they would try to take advantage of something that they feel (or at least claim) that they own. The government of Canada claims ownership over airwaves (through licensing etc) in the geographic area of Canada (to put it simply), and so the Indians appear to be making the same claim (in this case in Manitoba).
Example of Canada commodifying airwaves:M .20070525.wrspectrum25/BNStory/Technology/Ontario/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGA
"As Ottawa prepares to auction off more wireless spectrum next year"
My point was about how people (esp. governments and industry) in general think of the electo-magnetic spectrum. Just about anything can be given a legal status, commodified and sold these days. The RIAA doesn't have a commodity on this notion (or the CRIA for that matter).
On first glance it sounds ridiculous; however there is some precedence in the monetization of air:
0 5.html.
. 0.pdf: www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/060309dacaspectrum1. 0.pdf+lectro-magnetic+spectrum+auctioned&hl=en&ct= clnk&cd=1
-The state of New York has filed suit against Ohio for dumping pollution on them through the airwaves http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/mar/mar18a_
-A portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum is going to be auctioned off in the U.S.
"the spectrum is a national resource that should be managed".
PDF: www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/060309dacaspectrum1
google cache: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fH_s8JehCyEJ
If governments can make money off the spectrum then why not so-called "First Nation" governments? It really boils down to how much legal and economic authority Indians should have. And it deals with the ambiguity of a people who both want to claim their individuality and distinction from the rest of society, and still be apart of that society, especially when it comes to exploiting natural resources. It's pretty much politics as usual. Seems like the typical having-your-cake-and-eating-it-to mentality.
Some issues:
Q: Should sex offenders continue to be punished after they have served there sentences?
A: Probably not. It doesn't help them adjust to society and may cause more harm than good. If they are dangerous, then just keep them in jail. Companies should not encourage bad behavior.
Q: Can Web site owners accurately determine who is a sex offender?
A: If the sex offender gave accurate information when signing up, then probably most of the time. Otherwise these private policing policies are just marketing hype.
Q: Aren't Sex offenders too dangerous to be taken lightly?
A: It's all about FUD and marketing. There is no one standard definition of sex offender, and laws differ within states and countries. The peeing-in-the-park sex offender is but one example. I'm sure there are people who would like Bill Clinton labeled as a sex offender.
Q: Can't private sites do what they want?
A: Pretty much. I (and other's here) are just pointing out how stupid these large companies can be. It's another example of (apparently) uneducated business people and politicians taking a rather complicated social issue and offering simple-minded solutions.
Q: So what can be done?
A: Stay smart and keep educated, and pass this knowledge onto your children. If you can't rely on yourself, then don't expect easy solutions from other people.
I wonder why such obvious Flamebait was modded up to Insightful. Funny perhaps, but Insightful it is not.
There have been a few people who have called my post FUD.
/'ers are educated enough to both understand this and appreciate this. If I thought /'ers weren't (capable of this) then I assure you I would have worded the article differently. The use of a Science Fiction movie as a metaphor for reality should be obvious in this regard. BTW, I was actually thinking of The Truman Show, but in my enthusiasm to post (my first post, and it got accepted... woohoo!), I let that mistake slip through (my bad).
c es. Ask yourself how many politicians have done indepth studies of the Internet or the Social Sciences before passing laws. I personally have had formal and informal education in both the social sciences and IT. I think my opinion is worth something. I just thought I might share it.
First off, the use of rhetorical and literary devices does not constitute FUD. They can emphasize a point of view and make a statement or idea stand out. I'm sure
Somebody also had exception to my use of the word "spyware" for describing Vista Parental Controls. While not in the conventional sense is this spyware; this tool does allow parents to see what Web sites there children view, etc. In this regard (and keeping with the theme of the article) I will stand by this statement. And yes I realize that guns don't kill people, and technologies can be used for good, but that obviously wasn't the premise of the article.
I could very well have made the article sound more dry ("dull and lifeless" - WordWeb), but I wanted to echo the sentiments of what I felt like growing up with old-world over-protective parents. I certainly wouldn't want to grow up with over-protective parents in this day and age.
Last Thoughts:
These laws and technologies will never make good parents be bad, but they will enable bad parents to be do even more harm.
In hindsight it is easy for me to see the children I grew up with who have had over-protective parents. Many of them now have criminal records (nothing serious like murder, etc as far as I know). I don't keep in touch with them anymore. I have seen the "control-freak" (for want of a better word) parents control their kids to the point of neurosis.
I think we all want kids to be safe. Taking simple and reactionary solutions usually doesn't work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequen
There is an easy solution to cyberwarfare. Just don't keep important parts of your information infrastructure connected to the Internet; and always have offline backups. If people (especially businesses and government) rely too heavily on one medium (like the Internet) then it will become an obvious target. If worse came to worse, we could always just pull the plug. If your main line of business is related to the Internet, then you need to think of contingencies, like at the very least having VPNs for your customers/clients to use.
If people, businesses, governments, or armies cannot function without the Internet, then things have gone to far. I do however believe that the cyberwarefare concept is more hyperbole than a real threat. If I couldn't read Slashdot because of some Chinese government DoS attack, it would be sad for me, but it would not be the end of the world. And remember: the Internet as it is was designed for redundancy and routing around communication problems.
On second thought. I do see the humour and irony in that piece. I can only presume this person has probably read some of the same anti-FOSS BS that I remember reading. Otherwise, I wander what US politician could have posted under "Anonymous Coward" :)
I suppose that's why it's rated as flamebait. He's more than likely just trying to get a reaction (no matter what his/her actual beliefs are). It's a lame form of sarcasm if that's what it was intended to be. BTW I HAVE read about US politicians saying they wanted laws against FOSS because it supposedly hearts the US capitalist economy.
This sounds like vdsl (which allows about 80mb/sec bandwidth, with most of the bandwidth going to the video stream). My apartment building recently got vdsl, the advantages are that there is no need for every apartment wanting satellite TV to have to setup a satellite dish (it's not allowed here anyway). Also, we can get full speed dsl service without having to worry about line quality or being close to a Central Office. All the data is piped into the building through fiber optic cable, while using the existing cable infrastructure of the building to carry the signals to the individual apartment units.
For every argument made against irrationality, there will always be irrational arguments made to contest the rational. There is no way of winning against the irrational. So it goes. Religion will always win so long as the human mind is irrational.
It's a nice change to see a news article about children being intelligent and using critical thinking skills. I am only sorry that this is considered news.
If Linux was marketed as aggressively as Windows, it would be a different story. As it is, Linux doesn't come pre-installed as THE default operating, nor does Linux have the Rolling Stones doing commercials for it, or countless articles about it in consumer friendly magazines. Linux does not have lobbyists or sales people pushing it like Microsoft has. It's really no surprise Linux is not that popular with the average person.
I'll emphasize a few points:
-Google does have a quasi-monopoly, in the sense that a lot of (most?) other search engines contract with Google for search results, and none have come to the same quality as Google, hence if you want an accurate search result you "google" for it
-I'm arguing that the employment market rewards cheating (I think most management text books would agree, but that is another subject). You can't really cheat with a successful business model (although you can steal people's ideas)
-and I said "ideally"... ideals are hard to come by and not always practical. In essence Google is not being net-neutral by what it is doing (discriminating against certain types of businesses). It is an academic point. I could always run my own search spider or use http://www.yacy.net/yacy/Download.html if I wanted more neutrality... but those options of course require more work
Your points are well taken. I myself will continue to use Google.
It's really about net neutrality. Google should ideally just let ads through without (artificial) moral or political interference.
It will make cheating a little more difficult, and make the cheaters be a little more creative.
I don't really see the moral justification; cheaters lose out on a learning experience, and essay writers lose out on jobs. Overall GPA has nothing to do with overall career success. In the business world, cheaters are the ones who usually win. I've personally seen cheaters social-network themselves into leadership positions while people who actually spend their time being productive and efficient get treated like losers. Google cannot change reality.
Puts a whole knew meaning to the term "Ignorance is not an excuse"
At any rate...
Everybody should know by now that the intertube is a pornucopia of terrorists, pirates, sexual deviants, and spam monkeys. That's why we need a universal RIAA, MPAA and WIPO sanctioned international ID for Intertube users; so that we can easily monitor and track down Intertube abusers like peace frogs and 420 freaks. Do it for the children.
Interesting. But sounds more like FUD than reality. Using proxies, darknets, and just ordinary Web sites (with obfuscated messages) is more practical. I don't really believe you are serious, but kudos's for an interesting idea.
Sometimes the simplest solutions work best. OCR detection and Bayesian filtering will always be a cat and mouse game. I used to bounce spam, but stopped that when botnets became the main conduits.
This may be a bit redundant for the type of people who read Slashdot, but I thought I'd share my views anyway. These are some of the techniques (suggestions) I use to avoid spam:
-receive email from white lists only (where applicable of course, like personal accounts intended for friends only)
-turn off HTML features in email clients (Web browser features in email clients are bloatware IMHO)
-use the IMAP protocol to receive emails and set the your client to download headers only
-never use your _main_ ISP email account (it's generally hard/impossible to change without dropping your ISP)
-treat email accounts like passwords (think of them as being disposable and easily changed)
-if you need a publicly displayed email address, use the same techniques that spammers use to avoid OCR detection, robots, etc (learn from the pro's, know thy enemy, etc)
And of course the more obvious solutions:
-use spam filtering programs
-virus check incoming emails
-never open attachments, reply, "unsubscribe", or click on anything, or go to any URL/link in a spam message
If I wracked my brain I could probably think of a lot of other methods to avoid spam (like using email clients in sandboxes/virtual machines to try and avoid zero-day exploits). Of course if you use a "free" email account like Hotmail much of the filtering is already done at the server level, and generally you get what you pay for.