Spammers deprive me of a fair way to defend myself. I don't like being put in a position where I break my own moral code to fight them off, but by their method of attack they have taken away my ability to fight them fairly.
War fought in this way on these grounds is justified, yet I may still feel a little guilty when I look at their (servers') smoking remains.
I hate people like this all the more because they give me only two choices: lose, or denigrate myself and win.
I hope this explains a little better why people here hate spammers SO MUCH.
There is an ethical justification in being given no option (by the enemy) to defend yourself in ways other than using unethical means in order to protect yourself and your loved ones. These particular types of enemy tend to be called "truly evil" because they make you break your own morals to fight them.
e.g. having to shoot a person so that he doesn't shoot you.
"Turn the other cheek" doesn't cut it with certain types of enemies. They know this, and you know this.
Here's some prior art to pre-date that :)
on
Microsoft vs. Burst.com
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"Filippo Brunelleschi, the architect of Florence's remarkable cathedral, won the world's first patent for a technical invention in 1421. Brunelleschi was a classic man of the Renaissance: tough-minded, multi-talented and thoroughly self-confident. He claimed he had invented a new means of conveying goods up the Arno River (he was intentionally vague on details), which he refused to develop unless the state kept others from copying his design. Florence complied, and Brunelleschi walked away with the right to exclude all new means of transport on the Arno for three years.
That Florence acceded to Brunelleschi's demands is hardly surprising. The Italian Renaissance city-states, locked in a struggle for wealth and power, habitually gave monopolies to those who would build a needed bridge or mill, or who introduced some useful craft or industry. They would issue "letter patents" public declarations that openly (patently) announced the privilege. What distinguished Brunelleschi's bargain was invention - he was awarded the exclusive use of his own creation.
(more on Brunelleschi can be found in "Brunelleschi's Patent", Journal of the Patent Office Society 28 (1946), page 109.
(credit to Greg Aharonian, who used to run a patent industry newsletter mailing list)
DISCLAIMER: I work at a Patent Attorneys firm, but IANAPA.
Stallman said arguing about "Intellectual Property Laws" is not definitive enough.
GPL involves copyright laws, and not ideas per se.
Patent laws protect inventions, but not ideas. They also protect Business Methods, but this was as a result of evolution through case outcomes, much like they are used in cases involving software, thanks to some case law involving IBM a while ago.
Patent law is being used to the benefit of the cleverest (draw your own conclusions as to what "cleverest" implies), but this doesn't invalidate or apply a moral value to the law. It can be used for good as well as evil, and like all law is a work in progress.
That is an excellent point. The system does work when the two sides in opposition have semi-even economic resources (at least for the fight). This should encourage other small business owners to form loose alliances when this need arises again.
I once met a man from Brussels. He was six foot tall and full of muscles. I said, "You speak my language?" He just smiled, and gave me an O'Reilly book on Perl.
"Although he didn't know it, Phil had unwittingly provided the universe with one those strange coincidences that make unstable people wonder about God, and Evidentialist pedants write terse letters to the Oxford Dictionary demanding that the definition of "coincidence" connote a far more likely circumstance."
Should we shut up like a door, a fold-up bed, or like a guy who is talking to his mate about how fat his girlfriend is and just realises she is standing in earshot?
I'm just being silly like a goose. Analogies only serve a purpose in a discussion when they are used for illustration of a single (explained) point. They suck like a vacuum cleaner when other unintended aspects of them are argued over.
Slashdot Mirror
Spammers deprive me of a fair way to defend myself. I don't like being put in a position where I break my own moral code to fight them off, but by their method of attack they have taken away my ability to fight them fairly.
:)
War fought in this way on these grounds is justified, yet I may still feel a little guilty when I look at their (servers') smoking remains.
I hate people like this all the more because they give me only two choices: lose, or denigrate myself and win.
I hope this explains a little better why people here hate spammers SO MUCH.
(unless I've been trolled
There is an ethical justification in being given no option (by the enemy) to defend yourself in ways other than using unethical means in order to protect yourself and your loved ones. These particular types of enemy tend to be called "truly evil" because they make you break your own morals to fight them.
e.g. having to shoot a person so that he doesn't shoot you.
"Turn the other cheek" doesn't cut it with certain types of enemies. They know this, and you know this.
"half an ounce in grams"
"1/4 ounce in grams"
I tried to find out 1000 litres (yes they do both spellings) in VWs, but they don't have them as a unit of volume measurement yet.
Also Mailinator.com
It was a .bom startup from around 1996 that used "push" technology, which was really a client "pulling" info using an RSS type protocol.
or you can send them a pair of these
"Filippo Brunelleschi, the architect of Florence's remarkable
cathedral, won the world's first patent for a technical
invention in 1421. Brunelleschi was a classic man of the
Renaissance: tough-minded, multi-talented and thoroughly
self-confident. He claimed he had invented a new means of
conveying goods up the Arno River (he was intentionally vague
on details), which he refused to develop unless the state kept
others from copying his design. Florence complied, and
Brunelleschi walked away with the right to exclude all new
means of transport on the Arno for three years.
That Florence acceded to Brunelleschi's demands is hardly
surprising. The Italian Renaissance city-states, locked in a
struggle for wealth and power, habitually gave monopolies to
those who would build a needed bridge or mill, or who introduced
some useful craft or industry. They would issue "letter patents"
public declarations that openly (patently) announced the
privilege. What distinguished Brunelleschi's bargain was
invention - he was awarded the exclusive use of his own creation.
(more on Brunelleschi can be found in "Brunelleschi's Patent", Journal of
the Patent Office Society 28 (1946), page 109.
(credit to Greg Aharonian, who used to run a patent industry newsletter mailing list)
DISCLAIMER: I work at a Patent Attorneys firm, but IANAPA.
He'll get an extra 20 minutes warning if he is a subscriber. If he gets done 10 minutes after reading about it, I bet he'll wish he did :)
tea bagging's fine. leave it out of this please.
So tell me if I got this wrong...
are you saying IIRCAFAIKIANAL means
If I Recall Correctly, As Far As I Know, I Am Not A Lesbian?
Stallman said arguing about "Intellectual Property Laws" is not definitive enough.
GPL involves copyright laws, and not ideas per se.
Patent laws protect inventions, but not ideas. They also protect Business Methods, but this was as a result of evolution through case outcomes, much like they are used in cases involving software, thanks to some case law involving IBM a while ago.
Patent law is being used to the benefit of the cleverest (draw your own conclusions as to what "cleverest" implies), but this doesn't invalidate or apply a moral value to the law. It can be used for good as well as evil, and like all law is a work in progress.
That is an excellent point. The system does work when the two sides in opposition have semi-even economic resources (at least for the fight). This should encourage other small business owners to form loose alliances when this need arises again.
Funny modding above.
I don't think the parent comment has ever been said before quite like this, yet it was modded redundant as if it is was obvious.
I once met a man from Brussels.
He was six foot tall and full of muscles.
I said, "You speak my language?"
He just smiled, and gave me an O'Reilly book on Perl.
Marvin Minsky when he is angry? ... sorry, wrong Marvin.
...small discoveries, that are used down the road in ways that people didn't think of...
Excellent point. Sex toys and porn were not on the minds of the engineers when they were developing their respective techn...
Awwr, who the hell am I trying to kid?
Well, I was minding my business one morning when I woke up and looked out the front window.
This is a quote from a short story I wrote:
"Although he didn't know it, Phil had unwittingly provided the universe with one those strange coincidences that make unstable people wonder about God, and Evidentialist pedants write terse letters to the Oxford Dictionary demanding that the definition of "coincidence" connote a far more likely circumstance."
Here, more than ever: "a small step for (a old) man,..."
"... a giant leap (backwards) grammar"
Have you thought that if we can figure a way to grow these ourselves, quickly and cheaply, that this would be what brings fiber to your doorstep?
Now we know that these sponges are fibre, we also know a big tidal wave would bring fibre to your doorstep.
Patch Installed
To make more sense, you might like to show them the rest of the bike
Should we shut up like a door, a fold-up bed, or like a guy who is talking to his mate about how fat his girlfriend is and just realises she is standing in earshot?
I'm just being silly like a goose. Analogies only serve a purpose in a discussion when they are used for illustration of a single (explained) point. They suck like a vacuum cleaner when other unintended aspects of them are argued over.
It's not hypocrisy when you're doing X solely to the guys who do X to make them realize X is wrong.
What if X = sodomy?
Cheers,
Confused.