Right! We should elect more lawyers, like the current POTUS, because things are going just swimmingly now.
Lawyers don't come in claiming to know all the answers to the fiscal problems like MBAs do. Lawyers don't have experience running (or ruining) companies like MBAs do.
I wish that were true, however reality tells me otherwise. We have many of the same advisors that we had under the previous POTUS, and are making many of the same decisions that we were making then. I challenge you to name one thing done by the Obama administration that would not have been done by the Bush administration.
Did you not miss the uberninja assassination of Osama bin Laden that GWB wasn't even attempting to kill any more?
I did not miss the murder of Bin Laden. I heard about it on the news like everyone else. I saw Obama give his victorious press conference about the murder.
But yet what did that accomplish? What changed as a result? We still have the two ground wars going on that were started under Bush, with no real end in sight for either. We still keep people from those wars in indefinite detention in Cuba, we still make people take off their damned shoes to go through invasive airport screening to fly within our own country.
Now we have a new POTUS, [...] and what do we get?
Bin Laden shot in the head?
Can you point to something that was somehow changed by that happening? We went to the other side of the world to murder somebody; so what?
Withdrawal of troops from Iraq?
Most of whom have been replaced by contractors, or other people who do similar jobs - often at higher pay - but aren't directly responsible to the US military.
A deadline for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?
I hope you're also not holding your breath to see that war actually end.
It was not cheap in comparison to any other media you could buy at the time, which may well have been a part of why so few people ever bought it.
I believe Zip discs were over $15 each for a long time.
I should have been more specific, in that minidisc was used pretty well just for music on the market; I never saw a reader or recorder for using them on a PC.
That said, the format that should have eaten iomega's lunch on the portable storage front (before CD-R became cheap, of course) was the LS-120 superdisk. One drive could read and write regular floppies as well as LS-120 discs, and the discs themselves were cheaper than the Zip discs. But they were too late to market to make any kind of difference; of course later on they were both driven into oblivion by CD-R discs.
Those cameras I don't think went beyond 2 Megapixels
I already mentioned the Mavicas were awful for resolution in comparison to anything remotely close to the same price point. That was understood by the consumer and the entire market.
It was generally cheaper to buy a 100 pack of floppies than 144MBytes of flash memory
Not for very long, it wasn't. The various standards of flash media came down quickly in price while floppies stayed static in price and eventually started going up.
the added bonus of having a box of floppies handy for data storage
That was a poor excuse for a fringe benefit, really. 3.5" floppies were notoriously unreliable; I had more than a few discs die on me just in the time it took to walk across a room from one computer to another (sneakernet).
Floppies were cheap and easy to give away.
And if you were lucky, the disc would even survive long enough for the other person to read the image from it!
There wasn't much in the way of a guarantee that flash memory would be a race to the bottom
If you're referring to price, that was certain even in the early days. The standards were open enough that there were several manufacturers for each major format and they were frequently working to beat each other's prices.
At one point I kept a board on the counter, listing the cheapest prices we had per mb for each format so customers wouldn't have to ask me.
While the Sony batteries were expensive, they still lasted longer than most digital camera batteries of their day.
Simply not true. The Sony cameras were unique in that they were the only ones that needed moving parts to write files, hence they quickly consumed more power for the same amount of file writing and reading than any other system on the market.
Even first-generation smartmedia could run circles around the floppy, as it was surface written and needed minimal power to write files. It ran circles around compactflash of the day for reducing power consumption, but compactflash eventually caught up.
but floppy disk photos made hella lot of sense in 1999
First of all, the floppy disc system didn't make sense, even when Sony thought it was a great idea. If anyone had a reasonably decent system based on diskettes, it was Panasonic who at least used the superdisk 120MB; except of course nobody had drives for it so that was worthless too.
And second, no reasonable person uses the term "hella" anymore.
There are a few things that I always carry on to the plane with me. My laptop is one, and my medications are another. Of course my phone and chargers for phone and laptop are always with me as well. My suitcase is primarily for clothing, and I don't wear anything expensive so if they stole my shirts and underwear, I'd laugh at them.
But really I figured people would be wise enough in general to not put valuable items in checked bags. Even before the TSA existed you were still trusting the baggage handlers not to go through your stuff, there is nothing that prevented baggage handlers from taking or destroying your stuff before.
And carrying a bag of floppies wasn't all that different from carrying a bag of film
Except that floppies held fewer pictures than a roll of film, and were less reliable.
And a smartmedia/compactflash card would hold a lot more, at higher resolution.
Also, if you ran out of either, you could go to a store and buy some, since they were affordable.
It didn't take long for the cards to cost less per megabyte than floppies, and they read and wrote much faster.
And if your Sony camera battery went dead, you were hosed. Only the Sony charger could charge the Sony battery, which was heinously expensive if you were out somewhere and forgot either. Many other cameras at the time ran on AA batteries, and made it a lot longer on a set of batteries than the Sony cameras made it on a charge, as the other cameras had no moving parts to suck down battery life.
the 3 1/2" floppy (when Apple and HP chose it over the other two competing formats), none ever stuck. And even that was a failure as a digital camera media format
Back when the Sony Mavicas were using 3.5" floppies I was working at CompUSA (before it was Comp-Mexico, of course!). I worked the camera/upgrades counter quite a bit, and I was always surprised how much of a premium people were willing to pay for those stupid Sony cameras. Granted, smartmedia and compactflash were the dominant standards of the time and they were maxing out at 32 and 64mb respectively, and weren't cheap. But it still beat the hell out of carrying a bag full of floppy discs, and they were dramatically faster in read and write - and battery life was far superior on those than the Sonys.
Yet some people apparently wanted low-res battery-sucking cameras that used floppy discs. And I was happy to sell them those cameras.
with its cheap media and decent portable recorders
There were a lot of things to describe minidisc, but cheap is not one of them. It was not cheap in comparison to any other media you could buy at the time, which may well have been a part of why so few people ever bought it. Minidisc was a neat idea, but it was never at a practical price point.
Anyway, contact the local police. If this happens once at the airport, it probably happens several times and they'd love to close all of those cases.
I'll start by saying it has never happened to me, personally. I apologize if I wrote my message in a way that implied it had, I tried to make it clear it had not.
That said, if it were to happen to me, I would have an exceedingly hard time figuring out where it had happened. More than 90% of my flights involve a connection somewhere. While your bags are not usually screened at your arrival airport, they could well be screened at a hub airport - in fact I'm rather certain I've received TSA inspection letters from hub airports in the past. Therefore with multiple screeners coming in to play, if I was missing something it would be very difficult to determine when and where that item went missing.
And of course, as you pointed out in your case, the item never came back. I suspect the same would happen to me, which would deincentivize me from reporting the situation. I'm all for punishing criminals and all, but if there is no chance of seeing my item back I'm not going to be that interested in pursuing the crime, either.
Even if you did something obscure but unique to identify your property you still wouldn't be able to prove who took it by the time it showed up on the black market.
Obscure? No, you're supposed to engrave your social security number on your personal property. I learned that when I was a kid. My SSN is on pretty much everything I own. The US Army even printed my SSN on my duffel bag so people would know it was mine
I hope you included your birthday, full name, mailing address, and mother's maiden name to make it easier for your items to make it home!
My luggage gets searched all the time. I'm pretty sure they've never taken anything - at least not anything I've ever missed - from my luggage. But really, if something was taken I wouldn't have any recourse for it. Who would you report it to? How would you prove it was there to begin with? Being as you release your checked bags before you even go through security, and they pass through multiple hands before they even get on to your plane, there is a chain of inaccountability. Even if you did something obscure but unique to identify your property you still wouldn't be able to prove who took it by the time it showed up on the black market.
And of course, if you're like me and you don't live near a hub airport - therefore you need to take connections all the time - you and your luggage go through that many more sets of gates and hands before getting to your destination.
Nope, and I don't give a shit. Important communications are made in person, on the phone, or by letter.
If you don't care about email then why filter it at all? You are spending money, time, and resources filtering it but now you claim not to care about it.
So... I should care about it because I should care about it. How convincing.
You should care about it because your filters do not actually make the problem go away. But you just said you don't care about email, so you really should uninstall your filters.
I find myself needing to repeat. The greater scale is not a concern of mine.
You are allowed to be an ignorant, arrogant, isolationist if you so choose.
But if you feel like it, continue having a heart attack
Nobody is having a heart attack. You have mistaken your own choice to be a dick with your dream of making someone have an extremely reaction to your dickishness.
over the insecurity of inherently insecure technology.
But you don't care about email, so I don't know why you are continuing to reply.
And all this time I thought the sign "piso mojado" said "piss on floor"
I see piso mojado on the Spanish side of the signs that custodians put out when they wash floors. I would certainly hope they wouldn't be intentionally putting out signs asking people to piss on the floor...
Everyone in the USA should learn Chinese. For economic, political, and social reasons. I find it absurd that we still push Spanish on kids in our country as a second language, when the sum total of all Spanish-speaking countries doesn't have the economic, political, and social impact of China. I took three years of Spanish in school and hear someone speaking it maybe 3 times a month. I hear people speaking Chinese nearly every day.
the spammers will always find ways to get around the filter, or to obfuscate enough to make the filters cause more damage.
No they won't. Evidence: I have no spam in my inbox.
That is a poor criteria for "evidence". Check your filter for FPs often? Ever consider what those filters are costing you?
Spamming is an economic problem, and until we employ economic solutions, spamming will never truly be defeated.
I don't give a crap about "defeating" spam
You should. Your filters will not defeat spam; not now and not ever.
I simply don't want any in my inbox. And I don't have any there
You will continue to pay for your laziness.
I can go with a solution that works (spam filtering)
Just because it removes spam from your inbox does not mean it is working on the greater scale.
or I can go with a "change the world" solution which more than likely involves government intervention in my life
If you read my other posts you will see it does not require government intervention in your life. But you are free to be ignorant and arrogant if you want.
Let me think about that.
I would strongly encourage you try thinking sometime. Although it seems you have made it this far without it, so maybe it isn't in your favor.
Spamming is an economic problem, and until we employ economic solutions, spamming will never truly be defeated.
Yet here in the real world, spam has been defeated.
Intelligent people realize that the decline in spam is not in response to filtering. Many other factors were at play at the same time that have at least as much - if not more - effect on spam volume; not the least of which is the fact that spam volume is highly variable over time anyways.
Hell if you were intelligent enough to read the article you linked to, you would have seen:
In late September 2010, a collective known as Spamit announced it was closing because of "numerous negative events" and increased attention.
And that it closed with:
"For years there have been predictions that e-mail spam is set to decline," said Mr Leonard. "But for as long the spammers can generate profit from their activities, it's not going away."
Mr Wood said new spammers usually pop up to replace inactive ones.
"We've yet to see any evidence that spam has become a bad business to be in," he added.
The people who wrote the article you linked to are smart enough to realize that spam is an economic problem, so why aren't you?
Get a better filter. I use the same e-mail since 1998, it receives tons of spam daily, but I very rarely (like less than once a month) see any of it in my inbox. No false positives either. Seriously, this discussion is a waste of time. Get a better e-mail host, kick your sysadmin in the butt or stop trying to fiddle around yourself.
You missed the point entirely.
Spam will still be sent when people are filtering. Filters will still need to be adjusted, and they will still take up CPU time, storage, and people time. They will never bring about an end to spam, or even get marginally close to it.
My point is that filters are useless in the long-term fight against spam. If anything they encourage spam to increase in volume as spammers work on ways to get around filters; either by obfuscating their messages enough to evade filters or by pushing the FP rate up high enough that people won't want to filter.
Ultimately, as I have said here and in many, many, other slashdot discussions, spam is an economic problem. This economic problem will never be resolved until we counter with economic measures. Everything else is just a reactionary step in an arms race.
Now he sees that filtering isn't actually as great as some make it out to be. Spam is still being sent to him, still being processed, still being stored - and he has to pay for all of that. Meanwhile he'll eventually find email trapped in his filter that he wanted, and email that he doesn't want that makes it through.
This is the result of using reactionary methods in response to the spamming epidemic; the spammers will always find ways to get around the filter, or to obfuscate enough to make the filters cause more damage. People are starting to come around to the fact that the spam problem will never be solved by filters.
Spamming is an economic problem, and until we employ economic solutions, spamming will never truly be defeated.
Slashdot Mirror
Right! We should elect more lawyers, like the current POTUS, because things are going just swimmingly now.
Lawyers don't come in claiming to know all the answers to the fiscal problems like MBAs do. Lawyers don't have experience running (or ruining) companies like MBAs do.
Obama changed a good damn bit of everything.
I wish that were true, however reality tells me otherwise. We have many of the same advisors that we had under the previous POTUS, and are making many of the same decisions that we were making then. I challenge you to name one thing done by the Obama administration that would not have been done by the Bush administration.
Did you not miss the uberninja assassination of Osama bin Laden that GWB wasn't even attempting to kill any more?
I did not miss the murder of Bin Laden. I heard about it on the news like everyone else. I saw Obama give his victorious press conference about the murder.
But yet what did that accomplish? What changed as a result? We still have the two ground wars going on that were started under Bush, with no real end in sight for either. We still keep people from those wars in indefinite detention in Cuba, we still make people take off their damned shoes to go through invasive airport screening to fly within our own country.
Now we have a new POTUS, [...] and what do we get?
Bin Laden shot in the head?
Can you point to something that was somehow changed by that happening? We went to the other side of the world to murder somebody; so what?
Withdrawal of troops from Iraq?
Most of whom have been replaced by contractors, or other people who do similar jobs - often at higher pay - but aren't directly responsible to the US military.
A deadline for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?
I hope you're also not holding your breath to see that war actually end.
After all, our previous POTUS was an MBA, and things worked out awesome under him! Why wouldn't we want MBAs to run everything else, too?
Our previous POTUS declared victory how long ago? And what changed as a result? Now we have a new POTUS, who is changing nothing and what do we get?
It was not cheap in comparison to any other media you could buy at the time, which may well have been a part of why so few people ever bought it.
I believe Zip discs were over $15 each for a long time.
I should have been more specific, in that minidisc was used pretty well just for music on the market; I never saw a reader or recorder for using them on a PC.
That said, the format that should have eaten iomega's lunch on the portable storage front (before CD-R became cheap, of course) was the LS-120 superdisk. One drive could read and write regular floppies as well as LS-120 discs, and the discs themselves were cheaper than the Zip discs. But they were too late to market to make any kind of difference; of course later on they were both driven into oblivion by CD-R discs.
I've been yearning for a long time to hear what those staples are really after...
Those cameras I don't think went beyond 2 Megapixels
I already mentioned the Mavicas were awful for resolution in comparison to anything remotely close to the same price point. That was understood by the consumer and the entire market.
It was generally cheaper to buy a 100 pack of floppies than 144MBytes of flash memory
Not for very long, it wasn't. The various standards of flash media came down quickly in price while floppies stayed static in price and eventually started going up.
the added bonus of having a box of floppies handy for data storage
That was a poor excuse for a fringe benefit, really. 3.5" floppies were notoriously unreliable; I had more than a few discs die on me just in the time it took to walk across a room from one computer to another (sneakernet).
Floppies were cheap and easy to give away.
And if you were lucky, the disc would even survive long enough for the other person to read the image from it!
There wasn't much in the way of a guarantee that flash memory would be a race to the bottom
If you're referring to price, that was certain even in the early days. The standards were open enough that there were several manufacturers for each major format and they were frequently working to beat each other's prices.
At one point I kept a board on the counter, listing the cheapest prices we had per mb for each format so customers wouldn't have to ask me.
While the Sony batteries were expensive, they still lasted longer than most digital camera batteries of their day.
Simply not true. The Sony cameras were unique in that they were the only ones that needed moving parts to write files, hence they quickly consumed more power for the same amount of file writing and reading than any other system on the market.
Even first-generation smartmedia could run circles around the floppy, as it was surface written and needed minimal power to write files. It ran circles around compactflash of the day for reducing power consumption, but compactflash eventually caught up.
but floppy disk photos made hella lot of sense in 1999
First of all, the floppy disc system didn't make sense, even when Sony thought it was a great idea. If anyone had a reasonably decent system based on diskettes, it was Panasonic who at least used the superdisk 120MB; except of course nobody had drives for it so that was worthless too.
And second, no reasonable person uses the term "hella" anymore.
There are a few things that I always carry on to the plane with me. My laptop is one, and my medications are another. Of course my phone and chargers for phone and laptop are always with me as well. My suitcase is primarily for clothing, and I don't wear anything expensive so if they stole my shirts and underwear, I'd laugh at them.
But really I figured people would be wise enough in general to not put valuable items in checked bags. Even before the TSA existed you were still trusting the baggage handlers not to go through your stuff, there is nothing that prevented baggage handlers from taking or destroying your stuff before.
And carrying a bag of floppies wasn't all that different from carrying a bag of film
Except that floppies held fewer pictures than a roll of film, and were less reliable.
And a smartmedia/compactflash card would hold a lot more, at higher resolution.
Also, if you ran out of either, you could go to a store and buy some, since they were affordable.
It didn't take long for the cards to cost less per megabyte than floppies, and they read and wrote much faster.
And if your Sony camera battery went dead, you were hosed. Only the Sony charger could charge the Sony battery, which was heinously expensive if you were out somewhere and forgot either. Many other cameras at the time ran on AA batteries, and made it a lot longer on a set of batteries than the Sony cameras made it on a charge, as the other cameras had no moving parts to suck down battery life.
the 3 1/2" floppy (when Apple and HP chose it over the other two competing formats), none ever stuck. And even that was a failure as a digital camera media format
Back when the Sony Mavicas were using 3.5" floppies I was working at CompUSA (before it was Comp-Mexico, of course!). I worked the camera/upgrades counter quite a bit, and I was always surprised how much of a premium people were willing to pay for those stupid Sony cameras. Granted, smartmedia and compactflash were the dominant standards of the time and they were maxing out at 32 and 64mb respectively, and weren't cheap. But it still beat the hell out of carrying a bag full of floppy discs, and they were dramatically faster in read and write - and battery life was far superior on those than the Sonys.
Yet some people apparently wanted low-res battery-sucking cameras that used floppy discs. And I was happy to sell them those cameras.
with its cheap media and decent portable recorders
There were a lot of things to describe minidisc, but cheap is not one of them. It was not cheap in comparison to any other media you could buy at the time, which may well have been a part of why so few people ever bought it. Minidisc was a neat idea, but it was never at a practical price point.
Anyway, contact the local police. If this happens once at the airport, it probably happens several times and they'd love to close all of those cases.
I'll start by saying it has never happened to me, personally. I apologize if I wrote my message in a way that implied it had, I tried to make it clear it had not.
That said, if it were to happen to me, I would have an exceedingly hard time figuring out where it had happened. More than 90% of my flights involve a connection somewhere. While your bags are not usually screened at your arrival airport, they could well be screened at a hub airport - in fact I'm rather certain I've received TSA inspection letters from hub airports in the past. Therefore with multiple screeners coming in to play, if I was missing something it would be very difficult to determine when and where that item went missing.
And of course, as you pointed out in your case, the item never came back. I suspect the same would happen to me, which would deincentivize me from reporting the situation. I'm all for punishing criminals and all, but if there is no chance of seeing my item back I'm not going to be that interested in pursuing the crime, either.
Even if you did something obscure but unique to identify your property you still wouldn't be able to prove who took it by the time it showed up on the black market.
Obscure? No, you're supposed to engrave your social security number on your personal property. I learned that when I was a kid. My SSN is on pretty much everything I own. The US Army even printed my SSN on my duffel bag so people would know it was mine
I hope you included your birthday, full name, mailing address, and mother's maiden name to make it easier for your items to make it home!
My luggage gets searched all the time. I'm pretty sure they've never taken anything - at least not anything I've ever missed - from my luggage. But really, if something was taken I wouldn't have any recourse for it. Who would you report it to? How would you prove it was there to begin with? Being as you release your checked bags before you even go through security, and they pass through multiple hands before they even get on to your plane, there is a chain of inaccountability. Even if you did something obscure but unique to identify your property you still wouldn't be able to prove who took it by the time it showed up on the black market.
And of course, if you're like me and you don't live near a hub airport - therefore you need to take connections all the time - you and your luggage go through that many more sets of gates and hands before getting to your destination.
This clearly means global warming is a fraud, and it's over!
You learn Spanish because there are people who speak it in the US.
I know many more people in the US who speak Chinese than I know anywhere who speak Spanish.
Chinese is spoken only in China.
You either live in a cultural vacuum or you're just simply ignorant.
Unless everyone plans to go live there (great, another 400 million people to add to the population)
Chinese is orders of magnitude more relevant to the state of the world today than Spanish. It has nothing to do with who lives there.
then there is no reason why everyone should learn Chinese.
There are many reasons why everyone should learn Chinese.
Nope, and I don't give a shit. Important communications are made in person, on the phone, or by letter.
If you don't care about email then why filter it at all? You are spending money, time, and resources filtering it but now you claim not to care about it.
So... I should care about it because I should care about it. How convincing.
You should care about it because your filters do not actually make the problem go away. But you just said you don't care about email, so you really should uninstall your filters.
I find myself needing to repeat. The greater scale is not a concern of mine.
You are allowed to be an ignorant, arrogant, isolationist if you so choose.
But if you feel like it, continue having a heart attack
Nobody is having a heart attack. You have mistaken your own choice to be a dick with your dream of making someone have an extremely reaction to your dickishness.
over the insecurity of inherently insecure technology.
But you don't care about email, so I don't know why you are continuing to reply.
But your Twitter picture is pretty awful. Unless you're going for the 50-years-old-and-not-well-kept look.
Hell that picture looks almost as bad as the code that is running this joint now.
And all this time I thought the sign "piso mojado" said "piss on floor"
I see piso mojado on the Spanish side of the signs that custodians put out when they wash floors. I would certainly hope they wouldn't be intentionally putting out signs asking people to piss on the floor...
Everyone in the USA should learn Chinese. For economic, political, and social reasons. I find it absurd that we still push Spanish on kids in our country as a second language, when the sum total of all Spanish-speaking countries doesn't have the economic, political, and social impact of China. I took three years of Spanish in school and hear someone speaking it maybe 3 times a month. I hear people speaking Chinese nearly every day.
the spammers will always find ways to get around the filter, or to obfuscate enough to make the filters cause more damage.
No they won't. Evidence: I have no spam in my inbox.
That is a poor criteria for "evidence". Check your filter for FPs often? Ever consider what those filters are costing you?
Spamming is an economic problem, and until we employ economic solutions, spamming will never truly be defeated.
I don't give a crap about "defeating" spam
You should. Your filters will not defeat spam; not now and not ever.
I simply don't want any in my inbox. And I don't have any there
You will continue to pay for your laziness.
I can go with a solution that works (spam filtering)
Just because it removes spam from your inbox does not mean it is working on the greater scale.
or I can go with a "change the world" solution which more than likely involves government intervention in my life
If you read my other posts you will see it does not require government intervention in your life. But you are free to be ignorant and arrogant if you want.
Let me think about that.
I would strongly encourage you try thinking sometime. Although it seems you have made it this far without it, so maybe it isn't in your favor.
Spamming is an economic problem, and until we employ economic solutions, spamming will never truly be defeated.
Yet here in the real world, spam has been defeated.
Intelligent people realize that the decline in spam is not in response to filtering. Many other factors were at play at the same time that have at least as much - if not more - effect on spam volume; not the least of which is the fact that spam volume is highly variable over time anyways.
Hell if you were intelligent enough to read the article you linked to, you would have seen:
In late September 2010, a collective known as Spamit announced it was closing because of "numerous negative events" and increased attention.
And that it closed with:
"For years there have been predictions that e-mail spam is set to decline," said Mr Leonard. "But for as long the spammers can generate profit from their activities, it's not going away."
Mr Wood said new spammers usually pop up to replace inactive ones.
"We've yet to see any evidence that spam has become a bad business to be in," he added.
The people who wrote the article you linked to are smart enough to realize that spam is an economic problem, so why aren't you?
Get a better filter. I use the same e-mail since 1998, it receives tons of spam daily, but I very rarely (like less than once a month) see any of it in my inbox. No false positives either. Seriously, this discussion is a waste of time. Get a better e-mail host, kick your sysadmin in the butt or stop trying to fiddle around yourself.
You missed the point entirely.
Spam will still be sent when people are filtering. Filters will still need to be adjusted, and they will still take up CPU time, storage, and people time. They will never bring about an end to spam, or even get marginally close to it.
My point is that filters are useless in the long-term fight against spam. If anything they encourage spam to increase in volume as spammers work on ways to get around filters; either by obfuscating their messages enough to evade filters or by pushing the FP rate up high enough that people won't want to filter.
Ultimately, as I have said here and in many, many, other slashdot discussions, spam is an economic problem. This economic problem will never be resolved until we counter with economic measures. Everything else is just a reactionary step in an arms race.
Now he sees that filtering isn't actually as great as some make it out to be. Spam is still being sent to him, still being processed, still being stored - and he has to pay for all of that. Meanwhile he'll eventually find email trapped in his filter that he wanted, and email that he doesn't want that makes it through.
This is the result of using reactionary methods in response to the spamming epidemic; the spammers will always find ways to get around the filter, or to obfuscate enough to make the filters cause more damage. People are starting to come around to the fact that the spam problem will never be solved by filters.
Spamming is an economic problem, and until we employ economic solutions, spamming will never truly be defeated.