More responsible ISPs would help. A quick perusal of my maillog shows Verizon DSL as THE major forwarder of sober.p infected messages hitting my MTAs this weekend.
While personally I am a big proponent of a free internet I do not think it unreasonable to ask that broadband subscribers push egress packets on port 25 through their ISPs mail servers -- *unless* the individual subscriber requests otherwise.
Looking around, a good number of more responsible ISPs do this now (EarthLink comes to mind).
It was unintentional but it was so funny that I had to go with it. Googling the same phrase with NYTimes.com only yielded theatre reviews for a few pages. Feh.
It's funny the things one picks up when one reads, yes?
(b) points that they just didn't have the facts to back up
Thank you for this admission - it will keep this thread shorter.
Back to the original topic: discussing an aggressor attempting to censor protected speech via the legal system by using an unrelated example of sloppy journalism is probably not worth your or my time to discuss. It was a bad example which detracted from the valid (if tired) debate about free speech online.
My point, which evidently was missed (sarcasm can be subtle like that) is that Fox is no better than any other major journalism outfit when it comes to poisoning the well. All one does by holding up NewsEntertainment Channel A over NewsEntertainment Channel B is making one's political leanings the topic of debate.
Why is this moderated as funny? It's totally true. Not that *I* have any problem with conservative rednecks. This whole state (OR) is peopled with them with the exceptions of Portland and Eugene...
Hello, thank you for taking things literally. Some one's got to and I'm glad it's not me.
The implied humor with regards to "riders" on legislation is that is where politicians tend to staple totally unrelated legislation in order to get it to pass. The reason my idea is funny (har har) is because this time the legislation targets the legislature. Yuck yuck.
It was my understanding that the totalitarian regime argument was more of a small group of people (politicians) problem whereas campaign finance reform is more of a 'broken system' problem.
Say, if you run low I've got a whole new roll of tinfoil.:-)
Seriously though, do you think this push for punishment stems from a lust to control, or is it more readily explained as the natural progressoin of capitolism's affects on politics when campaign contributions go unchecked?
Personally, I enjoy how nearly all the discussion regarding IP law comes down to campaign finance reform.
Truth be told, I'm cool with criminalizing IP violation *with intent to defaud* as well -- so long as the rider on that bill criminalizes anyone involved in the sale or purchase of political influence for capitol.
The license that everyone accepted upon installation clearly states the program will expire in July 2005 or when a "commercial version" is released. This information is even presented in bold faced type by the installer (so you don't have to really *read* all the tiny print).
Tools whose purpose is to waste bandwidth will have a good deal of collateral damage. When pipes need to be upgraded to account for more traffic (regardless of said traffic being "good" or "bad") we all pay the price. That is, unless one of you out there owns a major backbone carrier (in which case, I'm single).
Bad idea, Lycos - nobody (no human, anyhow) likes spam - but the rest of us have so far refrained from crap flooding the net to stop it.
I agree with your assertion that this comparison is fallacious. However, I question that the motivation behind making an example of one spammer is convenience.
We had a medium, email, used by millions of people for meaningful discourse. Over time, a very small percentage of users (spammers) have all but trashed email for all users. We are using the legal system to make this small handful of individuals pay for their pollution. These few dozen persons have ruined a medium used by hundreds of millions the world over.
The scenario you describe would be a wonderful sight.
Soon, they'll get desperate. Times will be tough, they'll be like the corner pusher when the heat is on.
If there is a god, in a few months time, spammers in Florida will be running one another down at the stip malls in their over-leveraged SUVs. Cheap nylon button ups sticking to the hood ornaments like so much tinsle on a Land Rover Christmas tree.
You have a good point. I think it is debatable, but nonetheless, a good point.
"It's not a trade in the way you describe it. I don't think having real freedom costs you any security."
There is a problem of terms here. What you and I might define as "freedom" and "security" might mean something totally different to Tom Ridge or a CNN news correspondent. For instance, I agree with the gist of your statement, but I understand that on a long enough timeline some quacks are going to eventually hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings (to use the cliché example). I am appalled by their actions, but I am not willing to endorse blood samples and a full cavity search for every person flying through US airspace in order to prevent a possible future attack.
The system which would have to be put in place in order to be 100% effective at keeping hijackers from taking planes would be too costly on the flying public. To costly to their freedom to move about as a people. In this sense, we will trade freedom for perceived security. Freedom from over engineered airport checkpoints, freedom from inane lists of names which some high school drop out gets to match against the passenger manifest.
Again, we are suffering from a terminology problem. The word freedom is too malleable in this usage. I do not use 'freedom' in the 'liberty' sense which you are - I am using freedom as it applies to people's ability to go about their lives without constant reminders that some day some place something bad might happen to someone.
Slashdot Mirror
-- RLJ
While personally I am a big proponent of a free internet I do not think it unreasonable to ask that broadband subscribers push egress packets on port 25 through their ISPs mail servers -- *unless* the individual subscriber requests otherwise.
Looking around, a good number of more responsible ISPs do this now (EarthLink comes to mind).
-- Cheers,
-- RLJ
*ring ring* "hello?"
"All my ... *files* are gone and replaced with this thing that when I double click it ... nothing happens. I can't SEE any of my ... *files!*"
"This is your home PC, right?"
"Yes! They're all gone!"
"Is your wife missing any ... *files*"
"Oh god, she better not be!"
Cheers,
-- RLJ
It's funny the things one picks up when one reads, yes?
Cheers,
- RLJ
Thank you for this admission - it will keep this thread shorter.
Back to the original topic: discussing an aggressor attempting to censor protected speech via the legal system by using an unrelated example of sloppy journalism is probably not worth your or my time to discuss. It was a bad example which detracted from the valid (if tired) debate about free speech online.
My point, which evidently was missed (sarcasm can be subtle like that) is that Fox is no better than any other major journalism outfit when it comes to poisoning the well. All one does by holding up NewsEntertainment Channel A over NewsEntertainment Channel B is making one's political leanings the topic of debate.
-- RLJ
-- RLJ
- RLJ
-- RLJ
That will save money.
This is easily the worst cost-saving advice I have heard in a long time.
- RLJ
-- RLJ
n/t means no text.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
The implied humor with regards to "riders" on legislation is that is where politicians tend to staple totally unrelated legislation in order to get it to pass. The reason my idea is funny (har har) is because this time the legislation targets the legislature. Yuck yuck.
HAND,
-- RLJ
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Seriously though, do you think this push for punishment stems from a lust to control, or is it more readily explained as the natural progressoin of capitolism's affects on politics when campaign contributions go unchecked?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Truth be told, I'm cool with criminalizing IP violation *with intent to defaud* as well -- so long as the rider on that bill criminalizes anyone involved in the sale or purchase of political influence for capitol.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Wheee,
-- RLJ
Bad idea, Lycos - nobody (no human, anyhow) likes spam - but the rest of us have so far refrained from crap flooding the net to stop it.
-- Cheers,
-- RLJ
This discourse was not about stopping spam, this was a discussion about just punishment.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
We had a medium, email, used by millions of people for meaningful discourse. Over time, a very small percentage of users (spammers) have all but trashed email for all users. We are using the legal system to make this small handful of individuals pay for their pollution. These few dozen persons have ruined a medium used by hundreds of millions the world over.
Does this punishment fit their crime? Absolutely.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Clippy indeed, must be a slow news day,
- RLJ
Soon, they'll get desperate. Times will be tough, they'll be like the corner pusher when the heat is on.
If there is a god, in a few months time, spammers in Florida will be running one another down at the stip malls in their over-leveraged SUVs. Cheap nylon button ups sticking to the hood ornaments like so much tinsle on a Land Rover Christmas tree.
I long for this future...
-- RLJ
-- RLJ
"It's not a trade in the way you describe it. I don't think having real freedom costs you any security."
There is a problem of terms here. What you and I might define as "freedom" and "security" might mean something totally different to Tom Ridge or a CNN news correspondent. For instance, I agree with the gist of your statement, but I understand that on a long enough timeline some quacks are going to eventually hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings (to use the cliché example). I am appalled by their actions, but I am not willing to endorse blood samples and a full cavity search for every person flying through US airspace in order to prevent a possible future attack.
The system which would have to be put in place in order to be 100% effective at keeping hijackers from taking planes would be too costly on the flying public. To costly to their freedom to move about as a people. In this sense, we will trade freedom for perceived security. Freedom from over engineered airport checkpoints, freedom from inane lists of names which some high school drop out gets to match against the passenger manifest.
Again, we are suffering from a terminology problem. The word freedom is too malleable in this usage. I do not use 'freedom' in the 'liberty' sense which you are - I am using freedom as it applies to people's ability to go about their lives without constant reminders that some day some place something bad might happen to someone.
Cheers,
-- RLJ