You could also start paying actors a more realistic wage relative to the amount of work they do, quite often behind the scenes staff work for far longer and far harder to produce a movie and yet they get paid a pittance compared to the big name actors.
That's called what the market will bear.
While I will agree that Frank behind the scenes may work much longer hours building the sets than Eva Mendes spends acting on them.... I don't want to see Frank's man tits. You do the math.
Considering that Guy Fawkes and the whole incident is over 400 years old I would find it offensive if any licensing was required anywhere.
To copyright *that* or trademark it is completely ridiculous. Is that all it takes? Make a movie that uses a mask, out of context, about a guy that escaped disemboweling by hanging himself 400 years ago, and you get copyrights and trademarks over it?
I'm having a hard time understanding why Guy Fawkes was a loser. Was it solely because he failed or because he broke under torture?
I'm not sure if most people associate it with that movie, in which case they are associating it with the plight of the character which is wholly different than that of the real Guy Fawkes.
He was a hero to some people. That would have depended on your religion and philosophy at the time. He was quite defiant and resolute but did ultimately break under torture. That is kind of hard to hold against him as every man breaks.
I don't find the symbolism strange because of Guy Fawkes being a loser or a hero, just that Guy Fawkes was never fighting for any noble cause, or the suffering of the people per se, but for Catholicism. That's it. I don't find that very impressive and quite unsuitable to what he is being used as a symbol for today.
When you work with video and interactive sites, that by their fundamental nature require sight, there is not much point in designing it for a blind person.
Those are the services I am referring too. I also deal quite a bit with VOIP services, so that seems to already be suited to a blind person right?
Which is why I have so many titles in shrink wrap and just download a good quality pirate rip of the movie (I don't care if the source is DVD/BluRay) and put it on a NAS and then watch it with my WD Live TV Plus.
With the latest bullshit about DVD Jukeboxes being illegal, you know the ones that automatically rip for you, I don't even plan on buying one of those. I have my private tracker sites with over a PB in movies I can download at will.
I get all the benefits I should have had from the beginning and a pristine copy for "backup".
Not being legally available at a price you personally want to pay is whiny toddler stuff
That's not what he said. $50+ is an unreasonable fee. That's like charging $200 for a bottle of water in the middle of summer during a drought. Depending on the circumstances you could be killed or prosecuted for profiteering.
Then, of course, there is always the practice of price fixing.
Nobody owes you the ability to buy exactly what you want
True... when you are talking about physical products.
Intellectual Property?
I would argue that if you are the copyright holder and are refusing to sell, or otherwise make available, the Intellectual Property it immediately returns to the Public Domain.
That means that Disney would instantly lose rights over anything that is not on the market for a reasonable price. By reasonable I mean that they cannot charge 50x the market rate for something. If Disney said Beauty and the Beast on DVD was $50 (which is still very high) I would consider that being made available.
There is a huge amount of orphaned copyright material that is sitting and disintegrating as we speak due to pure greed and stupidity over IP.
I think the Internet will be saved only once it is destroyed.
Sounds counter intuitive, but once you take the Internet away from people, the people will want it back. The 2nd time around give them a layered decentralized Internet that cannot be stopped.
The 2nd will have built in Anonymity, which will be a huge deterrent to Big Content trying to control you.
TOR can work with participation, but you add something like Freenet to the equation and you really have something. It's not something that has been able to get started precisely because there is not enough motivation by the people to make it a reality.... yet.
Ultimately this will be taken to the end game. Government must outlaw the use of unapproved encryption and onion routing techniques to stop any kind of "free" Internet from being a reality.
Honestly, I think there is some hesitation on the part of the government to actually pull the trigger on this. One hand it *might* give them the control they want, on the other hand it could create the nightmare of not being able to see anything at all anymore.
Not to mention the danger of denying the public their bread and circuses.
Getting a web accessibility professional (MS,IBM,ATIA,et al. just announced this!) would do more to impact outcomes but it's a large cost for small shops
There is your problem. Welcome to the real world and the price of Freedom and the Internet.
Since there are no real standards, no required licenses, no certifications (required), etc. the majority of websites are created by consultants or amateur Wordpress (or similar platform) developers. The next step up from that are small design shops. Note I said developers, not programmers. So many of them can't even get the basics of PHP and just put packages together out of modules and scripts. Hence, why Wordpress is popular. You don't need have any programming skills to put together something basic.
Sooo.... if that is the majority of the people out there making websites how does a standard get made and enforced to allow access for the disabled to all the parts of a website that could be accessed in the first place?
Bottom line is that it is going to take skill and extra cost to make a website conform to a standard for visually impaired people to experience which, unfortunately, puts most websites out the picture (no pun intended).
I know it has been argued before that there should be binding legislation that websites have to do this, but I think that is a road we don't want to go down. We want the barrier to entry for creating a web site to be as low as possible, not suitably high so that only shops that can afford huge startup fees can participate.
Personally, I have never tested a website for use by the visually impaired because the services themselves can only be used by somebody that can see in the first place. If the testing software is FOSS, I would not have an issue with trying it out tonight.
Of course, I'm not expecting Sony to not shoot themselves in the foot a few more times.
I'm expecting them to commit suicide.
Their problem has never been hardware or even quality. I think if you just compared that Sony would be ahead. It's corporate culture and how Sony views the rights of its consumers to the content and their own hardware.
I know people with PS3's that are in a range of "no fucking way" to "possibly" on buying the next gen Sony gaming console. Not an "absolutely" in the bunch.
Sony has rubbed people the wrong way just one too many times. At least Microsoft was easier on the consumer, and still is, even considering the blinding rage over the 720 controlling First Sale Doctrine protected sale of used games.
However, when Law Enforcement selectively enforces the law depending on who you are or what company you are then Law Enforcement ceases to "serve and protect" and becomes nothing more than hired mercenaries or thugs.
Why is it that a small private citizen can defraud somebody of 10k and go to prison for years, yet when Wall Street does it, or Big Pharma kills people doing it.... nobody goes to prison?
That's what rightfully pisses people off. When laws and their enforcement effectively protect the rich and powerful and don't equally apply to an ostensibly free and just society.
Keep in mind... we are talking about intellectual property here. Not stolen property, not somebody defrauded of property or money, or a drug dealer selling an illegal product (which is a whole other discussion).
The fact the FBI is whored out for the NFL at great expense to the tax payer to make those fuckers a little bit richer while instilling fear in the populace is a disgrace when the FBI does not lift a fucking finger for the small business owner, but redirects him towards the local DA. That is what stinks.
It was fear too. If you are in a mall and see a bunch of FBI running in with guns it might be a little unsettling.
The FBI needs to concentrate on the most wanted, the serial killers, and you know basically crime .
"Urine and feces are processed in the thigh pads" - Leit Kynes
Yeah.... I bought the whole urine deal, but not the feces processing. I have pinched some loafs that I seriously doubt any technology, that is wearable, could process into anything useful.
How the fuck can the suit process corn? Corn chips just magically come out of a pocket?
I know that I am replying to you twice here, but why go after the command and control? Most SPAM is sent from infected computers and not infected servers. To my knowledge at least.
Residential ISPs would be doing a service if they shut off a connection and routed all port 80 requests to a web page explaining to the consumer that they have been identified as belonging to a bot-net and are harming others through their continued inaction. Give them links to solutions. Allow some proxied access to Google maps to find Geek Squad or some shit. Upsell a service to come out to their home and fix the computer.
They could *make* money going out to homes and fixing the infected computers and offer computer classes to educate people on dangerous behavior. Personally, I recommend the cattle prod approach in class. "No Bobby. Don't click the link until you inspect where it goes. Remember? **ZAP**".
As for the data centers that are doing hosting you can already take pretty severe action against them if *we* all as a *group*/dev/null'd their traffic for a couple of hours. That will wake somebody up in a second.
I know. We got on a list for a short time and it made us find the cause, kill it viciously, and wait anxiously for the rest of the world to start accepting our traffic again.
In all seriousness if you threw 100 people in jail tomorrow, SPAM would take a small hit then climb back up to regular volumes. What is needed is going after the people paying for SPAM. That is possible some of the time. I agree with your sentiment.
However, what I find surprising after following it as long as you have is why, why, why have we not made a concerted effort as a group to fundamentally change the way email works? Where is the IPv6 analog for email?
Do you know how ridiculous it is that executives continue to scream about how difficult it is to send 40 meg attachments through email when every single part of that transaction is exquisitely unsuited to doing so? There is a reason why they call it Base 64 encoding and not Base 64 compression.
Changing email to allow the transmission of binary attachments to accompany would be a step forward instantly. That would just be one of a hundred different things I could think to do off the top of my head.
SPF, reverse DNS, and DKIM are already set up to be incredibly effective if every major provider and business just got on board and excluded every one else. That, is the real problem. To solve SPAM we need to undergo some growing pains and nobody wants to do that.
I have ideas, but I am not enough of a hard core coder to create a hybrid email 2.0 engine that is platform agnostic and still allows legacy connections till we can kill it. Where is Google in this? The number of Beta projects that they come up with and kill is astounding. You would figure that they could just throw a department of a 100 people together with a budget and knock out an Open Source email 2.0 platform in a year. It would be in their best interest too. Imagine being the company that stopped SPAM?
Prediction: Email will remain unchanged even 10 years after we fully deploy IPv6. Which will be devastating to email since IP addresses will be given out like *candy* and be less effective as blocking tools.
That would not even be prosecuted under SPAM. It would be considered a DDOS and most likely part of a terrorist act. Since there is campaign contributions involved... you would see several three-letter-agencies involved and a predator drone sent to the remote site or some CIA asset in the area ready to "fake a heart attack" at a coffee shop.
Jeez where do I start? You must not be that familiar with email or how it is actually run today.
First off, email is an archaic platform that gets a bunch of glue and duct tape every so often.
Why not require real mail servers to comply with DNS to have an MX record for the domain or IP, and to then have SMTP servers for a given network or internet service provider throttle the number of e-mail per unit of time and to limit the number of recipients to human real-world numbers?
You can already do this with most mail servers. You have two problems here:
1) Requirement. 2) ISP involvement.
You cannot legally compel any person operating a mail server to do anything as part of configuration. The only legal liability I am aware of is sending SPAM itself, and even then the claim that you are merely a victim usually works.
ISPs don't want to be involved on a general basis. On business connections they don't do a damn thing, because businesses would go ape shit. I would. On residential connections some have at some points in time restricted port 25 destination traffic and the TOS usually prevent operating services off the IP address anyways. That being said, it has been awhile since I have actually seen a US based ISP actually block port 25 traffic anymore.
What is done on a day-to-day basis now:
1) Inspection of the IP address communicating with the mail server. Policy based lists, which are contributed to by the ISPs, tell us if it is a residential connection (Dynamic IP address ranges). There are also other lists that allow us to see if that specific IP address is flagged for SPAM. Look at Spamhaus or Cisco's Senderbase products. If the IP address is on a list it the session can be terminated immediately or the SPAM score increased sufficiently.
2) Headers. Who is it being sent to? Who is it being sent from? You have to ignore who the email is claiming to be from in most cases since that is easily forged. Every part of the email address can be forged except the remote IP address. Sent to addresses can be on white list to get it into the Inbox regardless of SPAM heuristics. Part of what you seemed to be alluding to is the EHLO statement. You check the reverse DNS for the remote IP address and see if it matches, or even exists in the first place. You're right that most real mail servers run by professionals, and not on home networks, will have a proper reverse DNS. Shutting down the connection solely based on that is questionable though.
3) URI inspection. Parse out all the links in the email and compare them against lists of known malware host sites. Fairly effective, and I personally don't allow the email to even reach the junk mail folder when one is found. New URIs pop up very fast so this is only effective for older campaigns.
4) Certifications, DKIM, SPF. These are methods outside of the mail server communication that involve 3rd parties, certificates, and DNS records that can validate a mail server as authentic and provide policies on how to treat remote IP addresses.
5) Anti-virus and Anti-malware. Inspection of attachments.
6) Heuristics. Evaluating all of the above plus content inspection to arrive at an overall SPAM score. If it exceeds the threshold throw it in the junk mail folder.
Now that is just off the top of my head for the mail servers I run. You also alluded to gray listing which is temporarily denying an email and asking that it be resent later. This is controversial because a lot of people are waiting for an email ASAP and can't wait 15 minutes. Throttling is also not very useful because on an IP address basis the SPAM load is distributed.
There are already quite a number of tools to reduce SPAM. The biggest problem I face is backlash from executives. Requiring proper reverse DNS left out half the vendors we were communicating with right off the bat. I have had to tone down the security a number of times because the remote part has no clue what they are
Slashdot Mirror
Guess if your desperete enough prison is a roof over your head and 3 meals a day
You would have to be pretty desperate to want to get reservations at a "hotel" that offers gang rape in the showers as a service.
If you mean violent liquid diarrhea, than that just depends where you went on the strip. Most are ok.
On another note, I don't think the premise in your sig works. Otherwise I would have brought peace to the Middle East a long time ago.
Not technically a dupe on Slashdot's part alone.
2/3/2012 10:30 EST - NRL News Release 7-12r
Contact: Donna McKinney, (202) 767-2541
Seems the source is a dupe as well.
I have never heard of measuring the magnetic field of a galaxy or celestial object.
Can an astrophysicist enlighten us on what you can learn with this information?
You could also start paying actors a more realistic wage relative to the amount of work they do, quite often behind the scenes staff work for far longer and far harder to produce a movie and yet they get paid a pittance compared to the big name actors.
That's called what the market will bear.
While I will agree that Frank behind the scenes may work much longer hours building the sets than Eva Mendes spends acting on them.... I don't want to see Frank's man tits. You do the math.
I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to take this post seriously without at least one citation.
Considering that Guy Fawkes and the whole incident is over 400 years old I would find it offensive if any licensing was required anywhere.
To copyright *that* or trademark it is completely ridiculous. Is that all it takes? Make a movie that uses a mask, out of context, about a guy that escaped disemboweling by hanging himself 400 years ago, and you get copyrights and trademarks over it?
I'm having a hard time understanding why Guy Fawkes was a loser. Was it solely because he failed or because he broke under torture?
I'm not sure if most people associate it with that movie, in which case they are associating it with the plight of the character which is wholly different than that of the real Guy Fawkes.
He was a hero to some people. That would have depended on your religion and philosophy at the time. He was quite defiant and resolute but did ultimately break under torture. That is kind of hard to hold against him as every man breaks.
I don't find the symbolism strange because of Guy Fawkes being a loser or a hero, just that Guy Fawkes was never fighting for any noble cause, or the suffering of the people per se, but for Catholicism. That's it. I don't find that very impressive and quite unsuitable to what he is being used as a symbol for today.
When you work with video and interactive sites, that by their fundamental nature require sight, there is not much point in designing it for a blind person.
Those are the services I am referring too. I also deal quite a bit with VOIP services, so that seems to already be suited to a blind person right?
LOL.
Which is why I have so many titles in shrink wrap and just download a good quality pirate rip of the movie (I don't care if the source is DVD/BluRay) and put it on a NAS and then watch it with my WD Live TV Plus.
With the latest bullshit about DVD Jukeboxes being illegal, you know the ones that automatically rip for you, I don't even plan on buying one of those. I have my private tracker sites with over a PB in movies I can download at will.
I get all the benefits I should have had from the beginning and a pristine copy for "backup".
Not being legally available at a price you personally want to pay is whiny toddler stuff
That's not what he said. $50+ is an unreasonable fee. That's like charging $200 for a bottle of water in the middle of summer during a drought. Depending on the circumstances you could be killed or prosecuted for profiteering.
Then, of course, there is always the practice of price fixing.
Nobody owes you the ability to buy exactly what you want
True... when you are talking about physical products.
Intellectual Property?
I would argue that if you are the copyright holder and are refusing to sell, or otherwise make available, the Intellectual Property it immediately returns to the Public Domain.
That means that Disney would instantly lose rights over anything that is not on the market for a reasonable price. By reasonable I mean that they cannot charge 50x the market rate for something. If Disney said Beauty and the Beast on DVD was $50 (which is still very high) I would consider that being made available.
There is a huge amount of orphaned copyright material that is sitting and disintegrating as we speak due to pure greed and stupidity over IP.
I think the Internet will be saved only once it is destroyed.
Sounds counter intuitive, but once you take the Internet away from people, the people will want it back. The 2nd time around give them a layered decentralized Internet that cannot be stopped.
The 2nd will have built in Anonymity, which will be a huge deterrent to Big Content trying to control you.
TOR can work with participation, but you add something like Freenet to the equation and you really have something. It's not something that has been able to get started precisely because there is not enough motivation by the people to make it a reality.... yet.
Ultimately this will be taken to the end game. Government must outlaw the use of unapproved encryption and onion routing techniques to stop any kind of "free" Internet from being a reality.
Honestly, I think there is some hesitation on the part of the government to actually pull the trigger on this. One hand it *might* give them the control they want, on the other hand it could create the nightmare of not being able to see anything at all anymore.
Not to mention the danger of denying the public their bread and circuses.
For all I know... you joined me :)
Getting a web accessibility professional (MS,IBM,ATIA,et al. just announced this!) would do more to impact outcomes but it's a large cost for small shops
There is your problem. Welcome to the real world and the price of Freedom and the Internet.
Since there are no real standards, no required licenses, no certifications (required), etc. the majority of websites are created by consultants or amateur Wordpress (or similar platform) developers. The next step up from that are small design shops. Note I said developers, not programmers. So many of them can't even get the basics of PHP and just put packages together out of modules and scripts. Hence, why Wordpress is popular. You don't need have any programming skills to put together something basic.
Sooo.... if that is the majority of the people out there making websites how does a standard get made and enforced to allow access for the disabled to all the parts of a website that could be accessed in the first place?
Bottom line is that it is going to take skill and extra cost to make a website conform to a standard for visually impaired people to experience which, unfortunately, puts most websites out the picture (no pun intended).
I know it has been argued before that there should be binding legislation that websites have to do this, but I think that is a road we don't want to go down. We want the barrier to entry for creating a web site to be as low as possible, not suitably high so that only shops that can afford huge startup fees can participate.
Personally, I have never tested a website for use by the visually impaired because the services themselves can only be used by somebody that can see in the first place. If the testing software is FOSS, I would not have an issue with trying it out tonight.
That's what makes no sense about that post?
I would think it would be the size 6 Japanese boot, because unless they have a different measuring system that is an island of midgets.
Of course, I'm not expecting Sony to not shoot themselves in the foot a few more times.
I'm expecting them to commit suicide.
Their problem has never been hardware or even quality. I think if you just compared that Sony would be ahead. It's corporate culture and how Sony views the rights of its consumers to the content and their own hardware.
I know people with PS3's that are in a range of "no fucking way" to "possibly" on buying the next gen Sony gaming console. Not an "absolutely" in the bunch.
Sony has rubbed people the wrong way just one too many times. At least Microsoft was easier on the consumer, and still is, even considering the blinding rage over the 720 controlling First Sale Doctrine protected sale of used games.
Damn, that is harsh. Probably like a form letter with a standard signature for posts on the website, I would *hope*.
Otherwise it sounds like a shameless marketing plug and just short of announcing an office party to celebrate.
Of course not.
However, when Law Enforcement selectively enforces the law depending on who you are or what company you are then Law Enforcement ceases to "serve and protect" and becomes nothing more than hired mercenaries or thugs.
Why is it that a small private citizen can defraud somebody of 10k and go to prison for years, yet when Wall Street does it, or Big Pharma kills people doing it.... nobody goes to prison?
That's what rightfully pisses people off. When laws and their enforcement effectively protect the rich and powerful and don't equally apply to an ostensibly free and just society.
Keep in mind... we are talking about intellectual property here . Not stolen property, not somebody defrauded of property or money, or a drug dealer selling an illegal product (which is a whole other discussion).
The fact the FBI is whored out for the NFL at great expense to the tax payer to make those fuckers a little bit richer while instilling fear in the populace is a disgrace when the FBI does not lift a fucking finger for the small business owner, but redirects him towards the local DA. That is what stinks.
It was fear too. If you are in a mall and see a bunch of FBI running in with guns it might be a little unsettling.
The FBI needs to concentrate on the most wanted, the serial killers, and you know basically crime .
Isn't there diminishing returns at some point?
If all you ate was literally shit would you not starve to death?
If you two don't stop it I will pull this thread right over! :)
"Urine and feces are processed in the thigh pads" - Leit Kynes
Yeah.... I bought the whole urine deal, but not the feces processing. I have pinched some loafs that I seriously doubt any technology, that is wearable, could process into anything useful.
How the fuck can the suit process corn? Corn chips just magically come out of a pocket?
I know that I am replying to you twice here, but why go after the command and control? Most SPAM is sent from infected computers and not infected servers. To my knowledge at least.
Residential ISPs would be doing a service if they shut off a connection and routed all port 80 requests to a web page explaining to the consumer that they have been identified as belonging to a bot-net and are harming others through their continued inaction. Give them links to solutions. Allow some proxied access to Google maps to find Geek Squad or some shit. Upsell a service to come out to their home and fix the computer.
They could *make* money going out to homes and fixing the infected computers and offer computer classes to educate people on dangerous behavior. Personally, I recommend the cattle prod approach in class. "No Bobby. Don't click the link until you inspect where it goes. Remember? **ZAP**".
As for the data centers that are doing hosting you can already take pretty severe action against them if *we* all as a *group* /dev/null'd their traffic for a couple of hours. That will wake somebody up in a second.
I know. We got on a list for a short time and it made us find the cause, kill it viciously, and wait anxiously for the rest of the world to start accepting our traffic again.
In all seriousness if you threw 100 people in jail tomorrow, SPAM would take a small hit then climb back up to regular volumes. What is needed is going after the people paying for SPAM. That is possible some of the time. I agree with your sentiment.
However, what I find surprising after following it as long as you have is why, why, why have we not made a concerted effort as a group to fundamentally change the way email works? Where is the IPv6 analog for email?
Do you know how ridiculous it is that executives continue to scream about how difficult it is to send 40 meg attachments through email when every single part of that transaction is exquisitely unsuited to doing so? There is a reason why they call it Base 64 encoding and not Base 64 compression.
Changing email to allow the transmission of binary attachments to accompany would be a step forward instantly. That would just be one of a hundred different things I could think to do off the top of my head.
SPF, reverse DNS, and DKIM are already set up to be incredibly effective if every major provider and business just got on board and excluded every one else. That, is the real problem. To solve SPAM we need to undergo some growing pains and nobody wants to do that.
I have ideas, but I am not enough of a hard core coder to create a hybrid email 2.0 engine that is platform agnostic and still allows legacy connections till we can kill it. Where is Google in this? The number of Beta projects that they come up with and kill is astounding. You would figure that they could just throw a department of a 100 people together with a budget and knock out an Open Source email 2.0 platform in a year. It would be in their best interest too. Imagine being the company that stopped SPAM?
Prediction: Email will remain unchanged even 10 years after we fully deploy IPv6. Which will be devastating to email since IP addresses will be given out like *candy* and be less effective as blocking tools.
That would not even be prosecuted under SPAM. It would be considered a DDOS and most likely part of a terrorist act. Since there is campaign contributions involved... you would see several three-letter-agencies involved and a predator drone sent to the remote site or some CIA asset in the area ready to "fake a heart attack" at a coffee shop.
Jeez where do I start? You must not be that familiar with email or how it is actually run today.
First off, email is an archaic platform that gets a bunch of glue and duct tape every so often.
Why not require real mail servers to comply with DNS to have an MX record for the domain or IP, and to then have SMTP servers for a given network or internet service provider throttle the number of e-mail per unit of time and to limit the number of recipients to human real-world numbers?
You can already do this with most mail servers. You have two problems here:
1) Requirement.
2) ISP involvement.
You cannot legally compel any person operating a mail server to do anything as part of configuration. The only legal liability I am aware of is sending SPAM itself, and even then the claim that you are merely a victim usually works.
ISPs don't want to be involved on a general basis. On business connections they don't do a damn thing, because businesses would go ape shit. I would. On residential connections some have at some points in time restricted port 25 destination traffic and the TOS usually prevent operating services off the IP address anyways. That being said, it has been awhile since I have actually seen a US based ISP actually block port 25 traffic anymore.
What is done on a day-to-day basis now:
1) Inspection of the IP address communicating with the mail server. Policy based lists, which are contributed to by the ISPs, tell us if it is a residential connection (Dynamic IP address ranges). There are also other lists that allow us to see if that specific IP address is flagged for SPAM. Look at Spamhaus or Cisco's Senderbase products. If the IP address is on a list it the session can be terminated immediately or the SPAM score increased sufficiently.
2) Headers. Who is it being sent to? Who is it being sent from? You have to ignore who the email is claiming to be from in most cases since that is easily forged. Every part of the email address can be forged except the remote IP address. Sent to addresses can be on white list to get it into the Inbox regardless of SPAM heuristics. Part of what you seemed to be alluding to is the EHLO statement. You check the reverse DNS for the remote IP address and see if it matches, or even exists in the first place. You're right that most real mail servers run by professionals, and not on home networks, will have a proper reverse DNS. Shutting down the connection solely based on that is questionable though.
3) URI inspection. Parse out all the links in the email and compare them against lists of known malware host sites. Fairly effective, and I personally don't allow the email to even reach the junk mail folder when one is found. New URIs pop up very fast so this is only effective for older campaigns.
4) Certifications, DKIM, SPF. These are methods outside of the mail server communication that involve 3rd parties, certificates, and DNS records that can validate a mail server as authentic and provide policies on how to treat remote IP addresses.
5) Anti-virus and Anti-malware. Inspection of attachments.
6) Heuristics. Evaluating all of the above plus content inspection to arrive at an overall SPAM score. If it exceeds the threshold throw it in the junk mail folder.
Now that is just off the top of my head for the mail servers I run. You also alluded to gray listing which is temporarily denying an email and asking that it be resent later. This is controversial because a lot of people are waiting for an email ASAP and can't wait 15 minutes. Throttling is also not very useful because on an IP address basis the SPAM load is distributed.
There are already quite a number of tools to reduce SPAM. The biggest problem I face is backlash from executives. Requiring proper reverse DNS left out half the vendors we were communicating with right off the bat. I have had to tone down the security a number of times because the remote part has no clue what they are