Microsoft's often taken the view: We are for STRONG intellectual property and patent laws - which protect inovation. Without such laws our ability to inovate will be seriously hampered
I wonder how much of their own "inovation" they feel has been protected in this case? I guess adding a dialog before launching an external application is inovative? I have one question for MS:
How does it feel to be bitten in the ass by the very laws that you have been defending because they helped you maintain your monopoly?
*begin tongue in cheek mode* But where will I get my viagra? How can I loose those extra inches I dont' want and gain the stronger thicker inches I have been promised? How will I ever live longer without my supply of DHEA - or how will I ever find term life insurance or a good mortgage rate? *end tongue in cheek mode*
*begin rant* Any help is appreciated - but I'm afraid that unless you take the consequences to the spammer out of the cyber world and put it into the real world nothing will stem the flow of SPAM. For example; when a spammer is hurt in his/her-> it's pocket book, or they get jailed with a large inmate who calls them "my personal love chicken", then and only then will they stop. I favor baseball bats and the angry mob approach, your mileage may vary.
Pressure must continue to be exerted on ALL spammers and their customers. Lets face it China did this because enough mail providers had blackholed the entire continent of china and chinese business men were resorting to hotmail/some other method to communicate and it cost them MONEY. It took the consequences out of the cyber world, and put them into the real one. *end rant*
Much like artists, for centuries scientists have been tied to their benefactors, be it the Government, the church, an institution or just wealthy individuals. To pursue science takes a special individual, and often that person needs money to do his/her research but making money takes away from his/her research. This is the quandry that has faced almost every serious scientist for the last 100 years and why many scientists teach.
It doesn't really matter where the money comes from, as long as the science that is done isn't tainted. Far to often science has been and continues to be tainted by the granting process. You can't study certain "drugs" unless you are looking for problems they cause, can't study benefiets. You are far more likely to get grant money if the problem you are studying creates headlines. "Global warming threatens planet" will get money "Don't panic, this appears normal" will not. The more alarmist the claim it seems, the more likely a grant will be gotten to study.
I say it is the morals and quality of the individual doing the research, and not where the money comes from. For example, Einstein wouldn't help develop an atomic bomb. In the end, any one offering money for science can try to exert undue influence. The quality of the people involved determines if that attempted influence has any effect.
What the RIAA says: We are just fair minded people protecting the artists.
What they mean: Our middle managers want a raise.
What the RIAA says: For every 50 bands that get signed only 1 "makes it"
What they mean: Hookers are expensive, and sometimes when we get drunk we sign people that aren't very good
What the RIAA says: If you promise to erase all the MP3's you were letting other people download we won't prosecute you
What they mean: yet
What the RIAA says: The illegal distribution of MP3's are hurting our CD sales
What they mean: We thought our near monopoly on music distribution would protect us in an economic downturn
What the RIAA says: No one wants to play the heavy
What they mean: We hired these god damn lawyers, it's about time we use them
What the RIAA wants you to think "It's about what is fair" what they don't want you to know is that in every single case brought against them by an artist for failure to pay royalties, they have lost. (Ok, maybe not that time michael jackson sued)
Finally, defendant sub 23 appeals to her right of free speech. Her texts enjoy the particularly high level of protection as defined in art. 10 EVRM. It is of the utmost importance that said texts are shown, as a warning, as those texts are based on the repulsion of the values of a democratic society. In this case the right to free speech prevails above copyright protection, if the latter applies.
Science by press release is almost never ever good science.
Big physics has been getting more money than big chemistry. Many chemists jumped on the bandwagon in the hopes of getting research grants in their discipline.
The nature of fusion makes the whole idea of "cold fussion" an oxymoron.
A lot of ameteur's have been getting closer to fusion in their homes than the cold fusion people have ever gotten.
The NYT is one of the most hypocritical organizations today. They sue to get 9/11 tapes of people dieing - all in the name of "openess" and "public information", yet they have a network connected to the public network - which is open and transparent through their own doing - and thats bad/illegal? PLEASE - The NYT's proxy servers were so misconfigured that it was akin to them posting information in the window of the downtown offices and then getting pissed if people read what they posted.
You can bet your rear quarters that if our hacker had been a reporter on a story for the NYT that they would be vigorously defending his actions. Like most large corporate entities the NYT has no moral basis for anything it does, in the end it's about money, not honesty, truth or enlightenment. It sure as hell isn't about the times mission statement which is "The Company's core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment."
Perhaps our hacker should have "enhanced society" by distrubiting the inromation he found to the world. It would have been high quality news to see how one of the most influtential papers is really run.
I have here in front of me your invoice saying that I owe you a license fee. In your letter you do not say what exactly infringes upon your IP, thus making it impossible for us to remove it. Even more disturbing is that you have yet to prove that any violation of you IP has taken place in a court of law. You seem to have gotten the cart before the horse and there is no legal precedant for us to pay for any "alleged violations".
Upon advice of counsel this letter is being turned over to our local state's attorney with a complaint. It is our feeling that SCO is attempting to illegally extort money from our organization. SCO's recent press releases are so inflated and obvioulsy false that we are going to pursue a class action civil suit and also file a complaint with the SEC. It is my personal feeling that you are no different than a mobster asking for protection money.
Sincerely, Joe Linux User
The thing that disturbs me is that some in our community think tha SCO has shown it's "best hand" at recent events. If you truly think that, then you are sadly mistaken. SCO is running a media showcase, and NOTHING is "leaked" or gets out that isn't meant to. Think along the lines of a magicians miss direction. SCO probably doesn't have a case, but it most certainly has better "code" snippets than has been shown to anyone outside of the legal and technical team bringing suit.
How many of the "memebers" are actually anti-spam people sniffing around to see who the spammers are? Then again, most fo the anti-spam community is smart enough to use a throw away e-mail address for this sort of thing.
Seriously - to help eliminate the innocent bystander from the spammer who needs to be whacked , start by sending an e-mail.
To: Direct Marketing Vendor From: Important Sounding Title cc: legal@fakedomain.com
Dear Sir,
I need you to help me kick off my marketing campaign by sending my message out to 31 million targeted clients. I will pay you 150,000 USD for this service. If you are interested, then please send your company name, a contact name, phone number and address so that I can have a contract drawn up. We will also need to have the name of your bank, and the address of the branch that you use for our contract as well. Please no account numbers, we only need to get the bank name and branch!
Sincerely, bigcheese@fakedomain.com Important Sounding Title Goes here
Wait for reply - post reply to slashdot/usenet/etc include all e-mail headers and or phone conversations
Constantly remind people that: A. No one will protect your from these spammers
B. No one will help you pay for the damages they cause.
C. No one will give you back the time that SPAM has wasted in your life.
Show up at the eventual fire with a can of gasoline.
As I recall djb had an alternative to SMTP called Internet mail 2000. The interesting thing about that was that the e-mail wasn't stored on the ISP's spool, but the senders spool until requested by the person whom the message was delivered to. It's an interesting concept. I think the combination of AMTP and internet mail 2000 would a good idea. The biggest advantage of this 2 pronged attack would be that the amount of cost shifting that occurs with spam would be greatly reduced and identification of the spammer is easier.
AMTP is a good idea but like any good idea there are a few caveats -
1. SMTP is simple and requires little overhead - that is gone with the X.509 certs and TLS
2. One may setup a web-server or mail-server at a moments notice to deal with traffic or get a project finished pronto. With AMTP that machine will have to get an x.509 cert to be able to send mail (and have it accepted) - thus increasing the amount of time and money that it takes to get these services in place. (Site wide certs would sacrifice the ablity to truly identify an offending machine)
3. There is nothing to stop a spammer from getting thousands of certificates and burning through them as they spam. Many spammers already right off dial up accounts, DSL, T1s and other form of access on an almost daily basis. This will simply be a another small expense that must be endured to send out an advertisement to "21 million confirmed opt in customers".
4. This won't stop spammers from hijacking others valid certs, such as on webservers running formmail.pl or mail servers that allow relaying or proxying through them.
The saddest part of this proposal is that eventually the "altruistic" protocol SMTP will die. Don't get me wrong, SMTP has a lot of flaws, but if you think of it in a more philisophical sense, it's a little sad. The Internet was based on the free exchange of ideas - and more importantly traffic. The spammers have forced us to censor ourselves, reduce or try to eliminate anonomity and move away from the "I trust you" model to the "your bad unless I can prove otherwise" model. The death of an egalitarian idea, that anyone could send e-mail. One more victim of spammers.
In the end if you want to stop UCE you will have to take the costs of such a business out of the cyber world and put them into the real world. This is a step in that direction.
Yeah, for starters, how about not giving an unfiltered email account to a fucking 3 year old.
It IS filtered , and he doesn't access it, his mother does. The shit STILL gets through. Imagine on an account that has never existed on a domain that has been in existance for more than 12 years and it gets porn spam that beats spam assassin. Oh yeah, on a domain that has only about 40 active e-mail accounts. njabl blocks more than 75% of attemtped connects from mail servers - how crazy is that?
What makes you think I want a "reasonable" anti-spam solution? I want to make people PAY for what they put me through -
Baseball bats and a bunch of friends and go spammer hunting. Until you take the consequences of spamming out of the cyber world and put them into the real world, you won't get anywhere. The best you can hope to do against spam is tread water.
Why do I have this atitude?
A certain 3 year old I know gets PORN spam, boy his mother is happy about that. At work we have had to invest LOTS of money just to keep up with the spam. This was mostly for new mail servers that wouldn't be needed if more than 50% of the incoming mail wasn't spam. Run spamassasin for 50,000 people and see how much it costs in equipment!
Spammers say that they don't hurt anyone, bullpuckey the above examples are proof that they do hurt people, they cost us money, and they don't care. If we take the consequences out of the cyber world and bring it into the real world, they WILL care. How you decide to do that is up to you.
Suggestions, besides hiring Vinny the Enforcer to visit your neighborhood spammer?
I have bell south, when I pick up my phone I have a 1 in 6 chance that there won't be dial tone. Oh yeah, and bellsouth is one of the "healthy" ILECSs. Considering the blatant incompetence of the ILEC here - and the fact the I work for one of those "unerfunded" companies I place my bet on healthy competition.
I have used SCO in the past to develop IBM mainframe software on. SCO was the base OS, and an emulator allowed us to emulate OS390 ran on top of it. Now with most big Iron able to run linux Vm's we can program directly for Linux. Where am I going with this? We are suggesting to writer of that software that it needs to be ported to Linux - we no longer run SCO on any machine.
If you are anyone that you know runs SCO, find out why, and have the software that runs on SCO ported to Linux. It's usually quite easy, and it makes your skin feel better knowing that your SCO free. Somone (wink wink nudge nudge) should put up a web site that counts the number of SCO de-installs since the law suit was filed. I bet such a web site wouldn't make SCO stock holders feel so good. I've de-installed SCO from the 2 machines - any one else?
The only thing that separates SCO and a common mafia thug that wants protection money is the color of the suits.
I believe that if SCO loses its case, or has it's case thrown out, then perhaps a good prosecutor could go after SCO's executives under the RICO statutes. Extortion is extortion and it is illegal. There is a big difference between protecting your IP, and trying to extort money. I believe that SCO has crossed that line, now if I can just find a prosecutor that believes the same.
Crisis has been averted, and a dangerous man is behind bars. He will serve as an example to all those that would dare critisize our way of life. This criminal was also involved in terrorist activity and bomb making.
Our successful re-education of that silly baseball player and countless of other examples prove that we can help people think the way they should. After all we know whats good for you, and we know how you should think.
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels
We just want to scare you into paying us money. Thats easier than actually producing a product that anyone wants.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
We have been trying to extort money from you.
SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
If we can get you to give us money, then we don't really have to prove anything. Our lawyers told us that.
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position
Holy SH*T someone is calling our bluff, what? They have lawyers? Suing WHO? I can't belive it, threatenting to sue is the way to do business, can't we grease your palm with some of our liscence fee to make this go away?
If current copyright and IP laws and the interretation thereof were in affect in the mid - 80's what could we expect?
1. PC's would still cost thousands of dollars
2. The only companies to produce BIOS codes would be IBM, and people that paid IBM royalties
3. The Internet would only be available to people in colleges and government - and the content would be heavily censored
4. The only PC manufacture would be IBM and all others would be "illegal copies".
5. All operating systems that ran on PC's would have to be liscenced from Microsoft
6. 20" Rims would have to be liscenced from GM as the own the IP for "the oversized sport tire package"
7. Performance exhaust systems are a Ford product exclusively.
8. CD-R's would have been outlawed and require a liscence to buy or own
9. There would only be 1 word processing program
10."Reverse Engineering" would be a legal term used at your prosecution.
You think it's crazy? Saying that you can buy a game/toy and are not allowed to open it up under penalty of jail - THAT is crazy. Why doesn't MS tell the truth, you didn't BUY anything except the right to use your toy. In actuality, according to their liscence (or my interpretation) that box that you plunked down 200 bucks for isn't even yours. Get used to it, unless there is a revolt, it is the way of the future. You will own nothing - but you will be allowed to use things, provided you pay enough $$$.
I have no need to refianance my house, I don't need a longer,thicker penis, I don't want to see that web site you were talking to me about the other night, no I won't be taking delivery of 5 million in gold, because I won't help you, I don't need viagra, I don't need norton anti-virus and I have no interst in any business oppurtunity.
There I just opted out of 85% of the spam I get. What?? You say that won't work, your going to keep spamming anyway? What was your address again.
Blame managers that sqish production scehdules, don't listen to their "techies" about debug and test time and demand a new upgrade every six months.
Blame the consumers that accept crappy software and BUY it if it's "new and improved" even if it isn't really.
Blame the marketing Mayhem that is Microsoft for getting us used to the constant upgrade cycle, nee without MS to help us our current upgrade mania would have been considered insane a few short years ago.
Blame the teachers who haven't used the system for more than 20 minutes before they start teaching it.
Older version of IE were also purposely broken in the same way; forced obelesence? As a regular Opera user I notice the same problem on some portions of the Microsoft web site as well (not just MSN).
To me this just proves that the remedy isn't working, that MS as a company prefers dirty tricks to competition and that the states that have not agreed to settlement had better press MS hard. (Wow holy run on sentence batman). It's sad that a company as successful and as full of talented people as MS has to resort to this type of behavior when a competitor comes out with a good product.
I'm reminded of a famous quote "Can't we just all get a long". I guess if your MS and you can't or won't compete the answer is no.
**please note you missed the point, in fact you missed the jist, sentiment and general jovial nature of the original post. In fact the wind in your hair is the 747 that just passwd overhead. This may not be your fault, sarchasim and some forms of humor are especially hard for people that don't speak english natively. The "wizard of OZ allusions" escape many especially the very young. Many native english speakers also have blind allegiances which prevent them from seeing such comments as "humorful". If none of these reasons seem to apply to you, may I suggest more fiber in your diet.**
*large puffs of smoke appear, and a talking face begs you*
"Gosh darn it! Open Source is digging into our revenue. Lord knows that Open Source will be the down fall of all things good, look whats happening to our profits! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here** I mean, we weren't really price gouging before, we were just looking out for our stock holders. Now our profits are going to go down because we have to lower our already, really, really, really fair prices or else we won't keep market share. It's unfair competition! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here**"
***second translation*** "G*d d*mn this sucks, we have to compete now, we just can't buy Linus out. So much for our past competitive strategy"
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's often taken the view: We are for STRONG intellectual property and patent laws - which protect inovation. Without such laws our ability to inovate will be seriously hampered
I wonder how much of their own "inovation" they feel has been protected in this case? I guess adding a dialog before launching an external application is inovative? I have one question for MS:
How does it feel to be bitten in the ass by the very laws that you have been defending because they helped you maintain your monopoly?
*begin tongue in cheek mode*
But where will I get my viagra? How can I loose those extra inches I dont' want and gain the stronger thicker inches I have been promised? How will I ever live longer without my supply of DHEA - or how will I ever find term life insurance or a good mortgage rate?
*end tongue in cheek mode*
*begin rant*
Any help is appreciated - but I'm afraid that unless you take the consequences to the spammer out of the cyber world and put it into the real world nothing will stem the flow of SPAM. For example; when a spammer is hurt in his/her-> it's pocket book, or they get jailed with a large inmate who calls them "my personal love chicken", then and only then will they stop. I favor baseball bats and the angry mob approach, your mileage may vary.
Pressure must continue to be exerted on ALL spammers and their customers. Lets face it China did this because enough mail providers had blackholed the entire continent of china and chinese business men were resorting to hotmail/some other method to communicate and it cost them MONEY. It took the consequences out of the cyber world, and put them into the real one.
*end rant*
Much like artists, for centuries scientists have been tied to their benefactors, be it the Government, the church, an institution or just wealthy individuals. To pursue science takes a special individual, and often that person needs money to do his/her research but making money takes away from his/her research. This is the quandry that has faced almost every serious scientist for the last 100 years and why many scientists teach.
It doesn't really matter where the money comes from, as long as the science that is done isn't tainted. Far to often science has been and continues to be tainted by the granting process. You can't study certain "drugs" unless you are looking for problems they cause, can't study benefiets. You are far more likely to get grant money if the problem you are studying creates headlines. "Global warming threatens planet" will get money "Don't panic, this appears normal" will not. The more alarmist the claim it seems, the more likely a grant will be gotten to study.
I say it is the morals and quality of the individual doing the research, and not where the money comes from. For example, Einstein wouldn't help develop an atomic bomb. In the end, any one offering money for science can try to exert undue influence. The quality of the people involved determines if that attempted influence has any effect.
For those that haven't been following along
What the RIAA says: We are just fair minded people protecting the artists.
What they mean: Our middle managers want a raise.
What the RIAA says: For every 50 bands that get signed only 1 "makes it"
What they mean: Hookers are expensive, and sometimes when we get drunk we sign people that aren't very good
What the RIAA says: If you promise to erase all the MP3's you were letting other people download we won't prosecute you
What they mean: yet
What the RIAA says: The illegal distribution of MP3's are hurting our CD sales
What they mean: We thought our near monopoly on music distribution would protect us in an economic downturn
What the RIAA says: No one wants to play the heavy
What they mean: We hired these god damn lawyers, it's about time we use them
What the RIAA wants you to think "It's about what is fair" what they don't want you to know is that in every single case brought against them by an artist for failure to pay royalties, they have lost. (Ok, maybe not that time michael jackson sued)
Finally, defendant sub 23 appeals to her right of free speech. Her texts enjoy the particularly high level of protection as defined in art. 10 EVRM. It is of the utmost importance that said texts are shown, as a warning, as those texts are based on the repulsion of the values of a democratic society. In this case the right to free speech prevails above copyright protection, if the latter applies.
Some quick facts:
Science by press release is almost never ever good science.
Big physics has been getting more money than big chemistry. Many chemists jumped on the bandwagon in the hopes of getting research grants in their discipline.
The nature of fusion makes the whole idea of "cold fussion" an oxymoron.
A lot of ameteur's have been getting closer to fusion in their homes than the cold fusion people have ever gotten.
See sig for final thoughts on this subject.
The NYT is one of the most hypocritical organizations today. They sue to get 9/11 tapes of people dieing - all in the name of "openess" and "public information", yet they have a network connected to the public network - which is open and transparent through their own doing - and thats bad/illegal? PLEASE - The NYT's proxy servers were so misconfigured that it was akin to them posting information in the window of the downtown offices and then getting pissed if people read what they posted.
You can bet your rear quarters that if our hacker had been a reporter on a story for the NYT that they would be vigorously defending his actions. Like most large corporate entities the NYT has no moral basis for anything it does, in the end it's about money, not honesty, truth or enlightenment. It sure as hell isn't about the times mission statement which is "The Company's core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment."
Perhaps our hacker should have "enhanced society" by distrubiting the inromation he found to the world. It would have been high quality news to see how one of the most influtential papers is really run.
To: SCO
From: Linux Company with many machines
Dear SCO,
I have here in front of me your invoice saying that I owe you a license fee. In your letter you do not say what exactly infringes upon your IP, thus making it impossible for us to remove it. Even more disturbing is that you have yet to prove that any violation of you IP has taken place in a court of law. You seem to have gotten the cart before the horse and there is no legal precedant for us to pay for any "alleged violations".
Upon advice of counsel this letter is being turned over to our local state's attorney with a complaint. It is our feeling that SCO is attempting to illegally extort money from our organization. SCO's recent press releases are so inflated and obvioulsy false that we are going to pursue a class action civil suit and also file a complaint with the SEC. It is my personal feeling that you are no different than a mobster asking for protection money.
Sincerely,
Joe Linux User
The thing that disturbs me is that some in our community think tha SCO has shown it's "best hand" at recent events. If you truly think that, then you are sadly mistaken. SCO is running a media showcase, and NOTHING is "leaked" or gets out that isn't meant to. Think along the lines of a magicians miss direction. SCO probably doesn't have a case, but it most certainly has better "code" snippets than has been shown to anyone outside of the legal and technical team bringing suit.
How many of the "memebers" are actually anti-spam people sniffing around to see who the spammers are? Then again, most fo the anti-spam community is smart enough to use a throw away e-mail address for this sort of thing.
:
Seriously - to help eliminate the innocent bystander from the spammer who needs to be whacked , start by sending an e-mail.
To: Direct Marketing Vendor
From: Important Sounding Title
cc: legal@fakedomain.com
Dear Sir,
I need you to help me kick off my marketing campaign by sending my message out to 31 million targeted clients. I will pay you 150,000 USD for this service. If you are interested, then please send your company name, a contact name, phone number and address so that I can have a contract drawn up. We will also need to have the name of your bank, and the address of the branch that you use for our contract as well. Please no account numbers, we only need to get the bank name and branch!
Sincerely,
bigcheese@fakedomain.com
Important Sounding Title Goes here
Wait for reply - post reply to slashdot/usenet/etc
include all e-mail headers and or phone
conversations
Constantly remind people that
A. No one will protect your from these spammers
B. No one will help you pay for the damages they cause.
C. No one will give you back the time that SPAM has wasted in your life.
Show up at the eventual fire with a can of gasoline.
Now go off half cocked, see if I care!
As I recall djb had an alternative to SMTP called Internet mail 2000. The interesting thing about that was that the e-mail wasn't stored on the ISP's spool, but the senders spool until requested by the person whom the message was delivered to. It's an interesting concept. I think the combination of AMTP and internet mail 2000 would a good idea. The biggest advantage of this 2 pronged attack would be that the amount of cost shifting that occurs with spam would be greatly reduced and identification of the spammer is easier.
AMTP is a good idea but like any good idea there are a few caveats -
1. SMTP is simple and requires little overhead - that is gone with the X.509 certs and TLS
2. One may setup a web-server or mail-server at a moments notice to deal with traffic or get a project finished pronto. With AMTP that machine will have to get an x.509 cert to be able to send mail (and have it accepted) - thus increasing the amount of time and money that it takes to get these services in place. (Site wide certs would sacrifice the ablity to truly identify an offending machine)
3. There is nothing to stop a spammer from getting thousands of certificates and burning through them as they spam. Many spammers already right off dial up accounts, DSL, T1s and other form of access on an almost daily basis. This will simply be a another small expense that must be endured to send out an advertisement to "21 million confirmed opt in customers".
4. This won't stop spammers from hijacking others valid certs, such as on webservers running formmail.pl or mail servers that allow relaying or proxying through them.
The saddest part of this proposal is that eventually the "altruistic" protocol SMTP will die. Don't get me wrong, SMTP has a lot of flaws, but if you think of it in a more philisophical sense, it's a little sad. The Internet was based on the free exchange of ideas - and more importantly traffic. The spammers have forced us to censor ourselves, reduce or try to eliminate anonomity and move away from the "I trust you" model to the "your bad unless I can prove otherwise" model. The death of an egalitarian idea, that anyone could send e-mail. One more victim of spammers.
In the end if you want to stop UCE you will have to take the costs of such a business out of the cyber world and put them into the real world. This is a step in that direction.
cluge
Yeah, for starters, how about not giving an unfiltered email account to a fucking 3 year old.
It IS filtered , and he doesn't access it, his mother does. The shit STILL gets through. Imagine on an account that has never existed on a domain that has been in existance for more than 12 years and it gets porn spam that beats spam assassin. Oh yeah, on a domain that has only about 40 active e-mail accounts. njabl blocks more than 75% of attemtped connects from mail servers - how crazy is that?
What makes you think I want a "reasonable" anti-spam solution? I want to make people PAY for what they put me through -
Baseball bats and a bunch of friends and go spammer hunting. Until you take the consequences of spamming out of the cyber world and put them into the real world, you won't get anywhere. The best you can hope to do against spam is tread water.
Why do I have this atitude?
A certain 3 year old I know gets PORN spam, boy his mother is happy about that. At work we have had to invest LOTS of money just to keep up with the spam. This was mostly for new mail servers that wouldn't be needed if more than 50% of the incoming mail wasn't spam. Run spamassasin for 50,000 people and see how much it costs in equipment!
Spammers say that they don't hurt anyone, bullpuckey the above examples are proof that they do hurt people, they cost us money, and they don't care. If we take the consequences out of the cyber world and bring it into the real world, they WILL care. How you decide to do that is up to you.
Suggestions, besides hiring Vinny the Enforcer to visit your neighborhood spammer?
cluge
http://www.yourhostsucks.com/forums/forumdispla
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
Your the proud customer of a Spam Haus? Do you get your Viagra online as well?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I have bell south, when I pick up my phone I have a 1 in 6 chance that there won't be dial tone. Oh yeah, and bellsouth is one of the "healthy" ILECSs. Considering the blatant incompetence of the ILEC here - and the fact the I work for one of those "unerfunded" companies I place my bet on healthy competition.
Tired of being raped by BellSouth,
cluge
I have used SCO in the past to develop IBM mainframe software on. SCO was the base OS, and an emulator allowed us to emulate OS390 ran on top of it. Now with most big Iron able to run linux Vm's we can program directly for Linux. Where am I going with this? We are suggesting to writer of that software that it needs to be ported to Linux - we no longer run SCO on any machine.
If you are anyone that you know runs SCO, find out why, and have the software that runs on SCO ported to Linux. It's usually quite easy, and it makes your skin feel better knowing that your SCO free. Somone (wink wink nudge nudge) should put up a web site that counts the number of SCO de-installs since the law suit was filed. I bet such a web site wouldn't make SCO stock holders feel so good. I've de-installed SCO from the 2 machines - any one else?
cluge
The only thing that separates SCO and a common mafia thug that wants protection money is the color of the suits.
I believe that if SCO loses its case, or has it's case thrown out, then perhaps a good prosecutor could go after SCO's executives under the RICO statutes. Extortion is extortion and it is illegal. There is a big difference between protecting your IP, and trying to extort money. I believe that SCO has crossed that line, now if I can just find a prosecutor that believes the same.
News From The Peoples Repbulic of California:
Crisis has been averted, and a dangerous man is behind bars. He will serve as an example to all those that would dare critisize our way of life. This criminal was also involved in terrorist activity and bomb making.
Our successful re-education of that silly baseball player and countless of other examples prove that we can help people think the way they should. After all we know whats good for you, and we know how you should think.
cluge
What SCO said, and what they really meant
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels
We just want to scare you into paying us money. Thats easier than actually producing a product that anyone wants.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
We have been trying to extort money from you.
SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
If we can get you to give us money, then we don't really have to prove anything. Our lawyers told us that.
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position
Holy SH*T someone is calling our bluff, what? They have lawyers? Suing WHO? I can't belive it, threatenting to sue is the way to do business, can't we grease your palm with some of our liscence fee to make this go away?
If current copyright and IP laws and the interretation thereof were in affect in the mid - 80's what could we expect?
1. PC's would still cost thousands of dollars
2. The only companies to produce BIOS codes would be IBM, and people that paid IBM royalties
3. The Internet would only be available to people in colleges and government - and the content would be heavily censored
4. The only PC manufacture would be IBM and all others would be "illegal copies".
5. All operating systems that ran on PC's would have to be liscenced from Microsoft
6. 20" Rims would have to be liscenced from GM as the own the IP for "the oversized sport tire package"
7. Performance exhaust systems are a Ford product exclusively.
8. CD-R's would have been outlawed and require a liscence to buy or own
9. There would only be 1 word processing program
10."Reverse Engineering" would be a legal term used at your prosecution.
You think it's crazy? Saying that you can buy a game/toy and are not allowed to open it up under penalty of jail - THAT is crazy. Why doesn't MS tell the truth, you didn't BUY anything except the right to use your toy. In actuality, according to their liscence (or my interpretation) that box that you plunked down 200 bucks for isn't even yours. Get used to it, unless there is a revolt, it is the way of the future. You will own nothing - but you will be allowed to use things, provided you pay enough $$$.
Squeal pig, SQUEAL!
I have no need to refianance my house, I don't need a longer,thicker penis, I don't want to see that web site you were talking to me about the other night, no I won't be taking delivery of 5 million in gold, because I won't help you, I don't need viagra, I don't need norton anti-virus and I have no interst in any business oppurtunity.
There I just opted out of 85% of the spam I get. What?? You say that won't work, your going to keep spamming anyway? What was your address again.
cluge
Ahhhh.... The blame game. May I play too?
Blame managers that sqish production scehdules, don't listen to their "techies" about debug and test time and demand a new upgrade every six months.
Blame the consumers that accept crappy software and BUY it if it's "new and improved" even if it isn't really.
Blame the marketing Mayhem that is Microsoft for getting us used to the constant upgrade cycle, nee without MS to help us our current upgrade mania would have been considered insane a few short years ago.
Blame the teachers who haven't used the system for more than 20 minutes before they start teaching it.
There is plenty of "blame" to go around
Older version of IE were also purposely broken in the same way; forced obelesence? As a regular Opera user I notice the same problem on some portions of the Microsoft web site as well (not just MSN).
To me this just proves that the remedy isn't working, that MS as a company prefers dirty tricks to competition and that the states that have not agreed to settlement had better press MS hard. (Wow holy run on sentence batman). It's sad that a company as successful and as full of talented people as MS has to resort to this type of behavior when a competitor comes out with a good product.
I'm reminded of a famous quote "Can't we just all get a long". I guess if your MS and you can't or won't compete the answer is no.
Uhm no????
What part about my translation was incorrect?
**please note you missed the point, in fact you missed the jist, sentiment and general jovial nature of the original post. In fact the wind in your hair is the 747 that just passwd overhead. This may not be your fault, sarchasim and some forms of humor are especially hard for people that don't speak english natively. The "wizard of OZ allusions" escape many especially the very young. Many native english speakers also have blind allegiances which prevent them from seeing such comments as "humorful". If none of these reasons seem to apply to you, may I suggest more fiber in your diet.**
Best Regards
A translation for those not fiscally inclined.
*large puffs of smoke appear, and a talking face begs you*
"Gosh darn it! Open Source is digging into our revenue. Lord knows that Open Source will be the down fall of all things good, look whats happening to our profits! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here** I mean, we weren't really price gouging before, we were just looking out for our stock holders. Now our profits are going to go down because we have to lower our already, really, really, really fair prices or else we won't keep market share. It's unfair competition! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here**"
***second translation***
"G*d d*mn this sucks, we have to compete now, we just can't buy Linus out. So much for our past competitive strategy"
Was, you wantz to looktz at a DVD du bought from the ministry of propoganda on a non party sanctioned OS! Vee Vill Krush You!!!